Letters From a War Zone

BY THE SAME AUTHOR Nonfiction Woman Hating Our Blood: Prophecies and Discourses on Sexual Politics Pornography: Men Possessing Women Right-wing Women Intercourse Pornography and Civil Rights (with Catharine A. Mackinnon)

Fiction Mercy the new womans broken heart: short stories Ice and Fire

For John

"It does not take a long time, ' said madame, "for an earthquake to swallow a town. Eh well! Tell me how long it takes to prepare the earthquake? " "A long time, I suppose," said Defarge.

"But when it is ready, it takes place, and grinds to pieces everything before it. In the meantime, it is always preparing, though it is not seen or heard. That is your consolation.

Keep it."

Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities

Contents

IN T R O D U C T IO N I

3

T A K E B A C K T H E N IG H T

T h e Lie

9

T h e N ig h t and D a n g e r

13

P o r n o g r a p h y and G r ie f

19

II

W ORDS

T h e P o w e r o f W o rd s

27

A W o m a n W rite r and P o r n o g r a p h y

31

S u s a n n a h C ib b e r

37

W h o s e P re ss? W h o se F re ed o m ?

41

P re fa c e to th e P a p e rb a ck E d itio n o f O u r Blood

47

N e r v o u s In te r v ie w

56

L o v in g B o o k s: M ale/F em ale/F em in ist

62

M o u r n in g T e n n e s s e e W illiam s

65

Wuthering Heights

68

Voyage in the Dark: H e rs and O u r s

87

III

T A K E B A C K TH E D A Y

A F e m in ist L o o k s a t S a u d i A ra b ia

97

A B a tte re d W ife S u r v iv e s

100

A T r u e an d C o m m o n p la c e S t o r y

10 7

B io lo g ica l S u p e r io r ity : T h e W o rld 's M o s t D a n g e r o u s and D e a d ly Idea

110

S e x u a l E co n o m ics: T h e T e r r ib le T r u t h

117

L o o k , D ick , L o o k . S e e Jane B lo w It.

12 6

F em in ism : A n A g e n d a

13 3

M a r g a r e t P apan d reo u : A n A m eric a n F em in ist in G re e c e

15 3

I W an t A T w e n ty -F o u r -H o u r T r u c e D u rin g W hich T h e r e Is N o Rape

162

V io le n ce A g a in st W om en: It B reaks the H eart, A lso the B on es P reface to th e B ritish Edition o f Right-wing Women IV

172 185

T H E N E W T E R R O R IS M

P o rn o g ra p h y : T h e N e w T e rro rism

19 7

W h y P o rn o g ra p h y M a tte rs to F em in ists

203

P o rn o g ra p h y 's P art in S e xu a l V io le n ce

206

T h e A C L U : Bait and S w itch

210

W h y S o -C alled Radical M en L o v e and N eed P o rn o g ra p h y

214

For M en , Freedom o f Sp eech ; For W o m en , Silen ce P lease P o rn o g ra p h y and M ale S u p re m a cy

222 226

W om en L a w y e rs and P o rn o g ra p h y

235

Silen ce M ean s D isse n t

247

A g a in s t th e M ale Flood: C e n so r sh ip , P o r n o g ra p h y , and E q u ality

253

P o rn o g ra p h y Is A C iv il R ig h ts Issue

276

L e tte r fro m a W ar Z o n e

308

E P IL O G U E F em inism N o w AFTERW ORD W h a t B a t t e r y R e a l ly Is

325

Introduction

used t o

I

w o rk as an assistant to the late poet M uriel R u keyser. I

typed o kay, but I w a s no respecter o f m argins and I didn't like using

capital letters, so I w a sn 't too u seful in preparing bu sin ess letters. I couldn't file because I could n e ver understand w h y so m eth in g should be under on e heading and not under an o th er, equ ally apt in m y view .

W hen I w e n t to d eliver packages, usually m anuscripts, fo r M uriel, or to pick th em up, I u su ally g o t into a political fig h t, o r ard en t discussion, w ith w h o e v e r an sw ered the door. W h en I w e n t to the library to do research fo r her, I w o u ld g e t all th e m aterial on h er ch osen subject, su rv e y it all, decide it w a s too boring and she couldn't h ave had this in mind at all, and g o back w ith n othin g. I w a s th e w o rst assistan t in the h isto ry o f the w orld . B ut M uriel kept m e on because she believed in m e as a w riter. N o m atter h o w m uch I fucked up, I had a job, a little ch an ge in m y pocket, a w a rm place to go, lunch and din ner, fo r as long as I could stand it. She had already decided to stand it: sh e believed in doing w h a te v e r w a s n ecessary to keep a w rite r o f talent (in h er estim ation) goin g. I d on 't think she e v e r w o u ld h ave fired m e. She had m ade g rea t sacrifices in h er life fo r both politics and w ritin g, bu t none, I suspect, had quite the com ic q u ality o f h er in sisten t support fo r me. O u t o f m ercy (and guilt), I ev en tu ally quit.

M uriel g a v e m e m y first book p arty, to celebrate the publication o f Woman Hating; and I th o u g h t that w a s it— I w as a w rite r (sort o f like being an archangel) fo rever. E ve ry th in g she had tried to tell m e w a s lost on me. She had tried to m ake m e u nd erstan d that, fo r a w rite r, en d u ran ce m attered m ore than a n y th in g — not talent, not luck; en du ran ce. O n e had to keep w ritin g , not to m ake a brilliant or d istin gu ish ed o r g o rg e o u s first try, bu t to keep goin g, to last o v e r hard tim e. Endurance, she w o u ld say, w a s the d ifferen ce b etw e en

w riters w h o m attered and w riters w h o didn't. She had had rough years. I hope som eday her story will be told. It is a heroic story. She kn ew the cost of keeping at w ritin g in the face of poverty, ostracism, and especially trivialization. She kn ew h o w m uch w orse it w as to be a w om an. She kn ew that one had to survive m any desolations and injuries— one w ould be both bloodied and bowed; but one had to keep w riting a n y w a y — through it, despite it, because o f it, around it, in it, under it goddam. I w as tw enty-six, tw en ty-seven . I had been through a lot in life, but in w riting I w as an innocent, a kind of ecstatic idiot. For me, w riting w as pure, magic, the essence o f both integrity and pow er, uncorrupted by anything m ean or m undane. Books w ere lum inous, sacred. W riters w ere heroes of conscience, intensity, sincerity. I had no idea w hat it m eant to endure o ver time. I had no idea h o w hard it w as to do.

N ow , at forty-one, the truth is that I am still a fool for w riting. I love it. I believe in it. I do kn ow n o w h o w hard it is to keep going. It is perhaps understatem ent to say that I have n ever been a prudent writer. In a sense, I am m ore reckless n o w than w h en I started out because I k n o w w h at everyth in g costs and it doesn't m atter. I have paid a lot to w rite w h at I believe to be true. O n one level, I su ffer terribly from the disdain that m uch of m y w o rk has m et. O n another, deeper level, I don't give a fuck. It is this indifference to pain— w hich is real— that enables one to keep going. O n e develops a w a rrio rs discipline or one stops. Pain becom es irrelevant. Being a w riter isn't easy or even v e ry civilized. It is not a bourgeois indulgence. It is not a natural outcom e o f good m anners m ixed w ith intelligence and filtered through language. It is prim itive and it is passionate. W riters g et underneath the agreed-on am enities, the lies a society depends on to m aintain the status quo, by becom ing ruthless, p ursuing the truth in the face o f intimidation, not by being com pliant or solicitous. N o society likes it and no society says thank you. W e think that contem porary w estern dem ocracies are d ifferen t but w e are w ron g.

T h e society will mobilize to d estroy the w rite r w h o opposes or threatens its favorite cruelties: in this case, the dom inance o f m en o v e r w om en. I have been asked a lot, by in terview ers and by w o men I m eet w h en I travel to speak, w h a t cou rage is, or h o w to be courageous. O fte n , I think that cou rage is a kind of stupidity, an incapacity, a terrifyin g insensitivity to pain and fear. W riters need this

kind o f courage. T h e m acho m en rom anticize it. I think it is a partial death o f the soul.

T h ese are essays and speeches, an occasional in terview o r book review , w ritten from 1976 to 1 9 8 7 . Iw ro te them to com m u n icate and to survive: as a w rite r and as a w om an; fo r m e, the tw o are one. I w ro te them because I care about fairness and justice for w o m en . I w ro te them because I believe in bearing w itn ess, and I h ave seen a lot.

I w ro te them because people are being h u rt and the injury has to stop.

I w ro te them because I believe in w ritin g, in its p o w e r to right w ro n g s, to change h o w people see and think, to ch an ge h o w and w h a t people kn o w , to ch an ge h o w and w h y people act. I w r o te them o u t of the conviction, Q u a k e r in its origin, that one m u st speak tru th to p ow er. T h is is the basic prem ise fo r all m y w o rk as a fem inist: activism o r w ritin g. I w ro te th ese pieces because I believe that w o m en m ust w a g e a w a r against silence: against socially coerced silence; against politically preordained silence; against econom ically ch oreograp h ed silence; against the silence created by th e pain and despair of sexual abu se and second-class status. A n d I w r o te th ese essays, g a v e th ese speeches, because I believe in people: that w e can d isa vo w cru elty and em brace the simple com passion o f social equality. I don't k n o w w h y I believe th ese things; o n ly that I do believe them and act on them .

E very piece in this book is part o f m y o w n w a r against the silence of w o m en . O n ly fo u r pieces w e re published in m ainstream m agazines w ith decent, not w o n d erfu l, circulations: th ree w e re published in M s., the last one in 1983, and one w as published in Mother Jones a decade ago. M ost o f the essays and speeches w e re published in tiny, eph em eral new sp apers, m ost o f w hich are no lon ger publishing.

T h re e o f th ese pieces w e re even tu ally published in the w id ely distributed a n th o lo gy Take Back the Night. Seven of th ese pieces h ave n e ver been published at all; fo u r h ave been published in English but h a ve n ever been published in the U nited States; one, 'L etter from a W ar Z o n e', has been published in G erm an and in N o rw e g ia n but n ever in English; and tw o (one on Wuthering Heights and one on Voyage in the Dark) w e re w ritten fo r this collection. N o n e o f th ese pieces, despite repeated e ffo rts o v e r years, w e re published in The Nation, The New Republic, The Progressive, The Village Voice, Inquiry, left-liberal periodicals that pretend to be freew h eelin g fo ru m s fo r radical d ebate and all o f w hich h ave published vicious articles w ith nasty, p u rp osefu l

m isrepresentations of w h at I believe or advocate. Som e of m y pieces w e re w ritten in the afterm ath of such attacks— m ost w ere w ritten in the social environm ent created by them — but I have never been given any right o f response. And none o f these pieces, despite repeated effo rts o ver years, have been published in the m agazines that presum e to intellectual independence: for instance, The Atlantic or Harper s. And I have never been able to publish anything on the op-ed page of The New York Times, even though I have been attacked by nam e and m y politics and m y w o rk have been denounced editorially so m any times over the last decade that I am dizzy from it. And I have never been able to publish in, say, Esquire or Vogue, tw o m agazines that publish essays on political issues, including pornography, and also pay w riters real m oney. I have been able to travel in the United States and Canada to speak. If the w o rk in this book has had any influence, that is the main reason.

T h ese essays and speeches present a political point of view , an analysis, inform ation, argum ents, that are censored out of the Am erikan press by the A m erikan press to protect the pornographers and to punish me for getting w a y out of line. I am, o f course, a politically dissident w riter but by virtue o f gend er I am a second-class politically dissident w riter. T h at m eans that lean be erased, m aligned, ridiculed in violent and abusive language, and kept from speaking in m y o w n voice by people pretending to stand for freedom of speech. It also m eans that ev ery m isogynist stereotype can be invoked to justify the exclusion, the financial punishm ent, the contem pt, the forced exile from published debate. T h e fact is that these essays and speeches speak for and to vast num bers of w om en condem ned to silence by this same m isogyny, this sam e sadistic self-righteousness, this same callous disregard for hum an rights and hum an dignity. I do know , o f course, that I am not supposed to keep on w riting. O n e is supposed to disappear as a w riter. I have not. I hope that I will not. I k n o w that som e o ther people share the sam e hope; and I take this opportu nity to thank them for the help th ey have given me over this decade o f try in g — as I said earlier— to com m unicate and to survive, as a w riter and as a w om an; the tw o are one for me.

Andrea D w orkin N ew Y ork C ity N ovem b er 1 9 8 7

T A K E TH E

B A C K N I G H T

In legend there is relief from the enemy, sorrow is turned into gladness, mourning into holiday.

In life, only some of this is possible.

E. M. Broner, A Weave of Women

The Lie 1979

T h e Lie was written as a speech and given at a rally on October 20, 1979, at Bryant Park, behind New York City's formal and beautiful main public library. This park is usually dominated by drug pushers. It, with the library behind it, marks the lower boundary of Times Square, the sexual-abuse capital of industrialized Amerika.

5000 people, overwhelmingly women, had marched on Times Square in a demonstration organized by Women Against Pornography and led by Susan Brownmiller, Gloria Steinem, and Bella Abzug, among others. The March had begun at Columbus Circle at West 59 Street, the uppermost boundary of the Times Square area, and the rally at Bryant Park marked its conclusion. For the first time, Times Square didn't belong to the pimps; it belonged to women— not women hurt and exploited for profit but women proud and triumphant. The March served notice on pornographers that masses of women could rise up and stop the organized trafficking in women and girls that was the usual activity on those very mean streets. Feminists took the ground but didn't hold it.

h ere

is o n e m essage basic to all kinds o f p o rn ograp h y from

the sludge that w e see all around us, to the a rtsy -fa rtsy p o rn o g rap h y th at the intellectuals call erotica, to the u n d er-th eco u n ter kiddie porn, to the slick, glo ssy m e n s "en tertain m e n t" m agazines. T h e one m essage that is carried in all p o rn o g rap h y all th e tim e is this: she w a n ts it; she w a n ts to be beaten; she w a n ts to be forced; she w a n ts to be raped; she w a n ts to be brutalized; she w a n ts to be hu rt. T h is is the prem ise, the first principle, o f all p o r­ nograp hy. She w a n ts these despicable th in gs done to her. Sh e likes it. Sh e likes to be hit and she likes to be h u rt and sh e likes to be forced.

M eanw hile, all across this cou ntry, w om en and you n g girls are being raped and beaten and forced and brutalized and hurt.

T h e police believe they w anted it. M ost of the people around them believe they w anted it. "And w h at did you do to provoke him ? " the battered w ife is asked o ver and o ver again w hen finally she dares to ask for help or for protection. "Did you like it? " the police ask the rape victim. "Adm it that som ething in you w anted it," the psychiatrist urges. "It w as the en ergy you gave o u t, " says the guru. A dult men claim that their ow n daughters w h o are eight years old or ten years old or thirteen years old led them on.

T h e belief is that the fem ale w ants to be hurt. T h e belief is that the fem ale likes to be forced. T h e proof that she w an ts it is everyw h ere: the w ay she dresses; the w ay she walks; the w a y she talks; the w ay she sits; the w ay she stands; she w as out after dark; she invited a male friend into her house; she said hello to a male neighbor; she opened the door; she looked at a man; a m an asked her w h at time it w as and she told him; she sat on her fa th e rs lap; she asked her fath er a question about sex; she got into a car w ith a man; she got into a car w ith her best friend's father or her uncle or her teacher; she flirted; she got married; she had sex once w ith a man and said no the next time; she is not a virgin; she talks w ith men; she talks w ith her father; she w en t to a m ovie alone; she took a w alk alone; she w en t shopping alone; she smiled; she is hom e alone, asleep, the m an breaks in, and still, the question is asked, "Did you like it? Did you leave the w in d o w open just hoping that som eone w ould pop on throu gh ? D o you alw ays sleep w ith ou t any clothes on? Did you have an o rgasm ? " H er body is bruised, she is torn and hurt, and still the question persists: did you provoke it? did you like it? is this w h at you really w anted all along? is this w h at you w ere w aitin g for and hoping for and dream ing of? Y ou keep saying no. T ry proving no. T h ose bruises? W om en like to be roughed up a bit. W hat did you do to lead him on? H ow did you provoke him ? Did you like it?

A boyfriend o r a husband or one's parents or even som etim es a fem ale lover will believe that she could have fo u gh t him o ff— if she had really w anted to. She m ust have really w anted it— if it happened.

W hat w a s it she w anted? She w anted the force, the hurt, the harm , the pain, the humiliation. W hy did she w ant it? Because she is fem ale and fem ales alw ays provoke it, alw ays w an t it, alw ays like it.

The Lie A nd h o w does ev ery o n e w h o se opinion m atters k n o w that w o m en w a n t to be forced and h u rt and brutalized? P orn ograph y says so. For cen turies m en h ave consum ed p o rn ograph y in secret— yes, the law yers and the legislators and the doctors and the artists and the w riters and the scientists and the theologians and the philosophers.

A nd for these sam e centuries, w om en h ave not consum ed p or­ n o grap h y and w o m en have not been law yers and legislators and d octors and artists and w riters and scientists and theologians and philosophers.

M en believe the p orn ograph y, in w hich the w o m en a lw ays w a n t it.

M en believe the porn ograph y, in w hich w o m en resist and say no on ly so that m en will force them and use m ore and m ore force and m ore and m ore brutality. T o this day, m en believe the po rn ograp h y and m en do not believe the w o m en w h o say no.

Som e people say that p o rn ograph y is on ly fantasy. W hat part o f it is fan tasy? W om en are beaten and raped and forced and w hipped and held captive. T h e violence depicted is true. T h e acts o f violence depicted in p o rn ograph y are real acts com m itted against real w o m en and real fem ale children. The fantasy is that w o m en w a n t to be abused.

A nd so w e are h ere today to explain calm ly— to sh ou t, to scream , to bellow , to holler— that w e w o m en do not w a n t it, not today, not to m o rro w , not yesterday. W e n ever will w a n t it and w e n e ver h ave w anted it. T h e prostitu te does not w a n t to be forced and hurt. T h e h o m e m aker does not w a n t to be forced and hu rt. T h e lesbian does not w a n t to be forced and h u rt. T h e y o u n g girl does not w a n t to be forced and hurt.

A nd because e v e ry w h e re in this co u n try , daily, th ou san ds of w o m en

and y o u n g girls are being bru talized — and this is not

fa n ta sy — ev ery day w o m en and y o u n g girls are being raped and beaten and fo rced — w e will n ever again accept any depiction o f us that has as its first principle, its first prem ise, that w e w a n t to be abused, that w e en joy being h u rt, that w e like being forced.

T h a t is w h y w e will figh t po rn ograp h y w h e re v e r w e find it; and w e will figh t those w h o ju stify it and those w h o m ake it and those w h o b u y and use it.

A nd m ake no m istake: this m o vem en t against po rn ograp h y is a m ovem en t against silence— the silence o f the real victim s. A nd this

m ovem ent against pornography is a m ovem ent for speech— the speech o f those w h o have been silenced by sexual force, the speech o f w om en and you n g girls. And w e will never, never be silenced again.

The Night and Danger 1979

T h e N ig h t and D a n g e r was written as a Take Back the Night speech. In New Haven, Connecticut, 2000 women marched. Street prostitutes joined the March and old women in old age homes came out on balconies with lit candles. In Old Dominion, Virginia, blacks and whites, women and men, gays and straights, in the hundreds, joined together in the first political march ever held in Old Dominion, an oligarchal, conservative stronghold, as the name suggests.

People marched fourteen miles, as if they didn't want to miss a footpath, under threat of losing their jobs and with the threat of police violence. In Calgary, Canada, women were arrested for demonstrating without a permit, the irony that a March is the safest way (arrests notwithstanding) for women to go out at night lost on the police but not on the women. In Los Angeles, California, the tail end of a double line of 2000 women walking on sidewalks was attacked by men in cars.

I don't know how many times I gave this speech, but in giving it I have seen North America and met some of the bravest people around. T h e N ig h t an d D a n g e r has never been published before.

T a k e B a c k t h e N ig h t M arch

goes right to o u r em otional

core. W e w o m en are especially supposed to be afraid o f the night. T h e nigh t prom ises harm to w o m en . For a w o m an to w a lk on th e street at night is not on ly to risk abuse, but also— according to th e valu es o f m ale d om in atio n — to ask fo r it. T h e w o m a n w h o tran sgresses th e boundaries o f nigh t is an o u tla w w h o breaks an elem en ta ry rule o f civilized behavior: a decen t w o m a n does not g o o u t — certainly not alone, certain ly not only w ith o th e r w o m e n — at nigh t. A w o m a n o u t in the night, not on a leash, is th o u g h t to be a slut o r an uppity bitch w h o does not k n o w h er place. T h e policem en o f th e

nigh t— rapists and other prow ling m en— have the right to enforce the law s of the night: to stalk the fem ale and to punish her. W e have all been chased, and m any o f us have been caught. A w om an w h o kn ow s the rules o f civilized society kn o w s that she m ust hide from the night. But even w h en the w om an, like a good girl, locks herself up and in, night threatens to intrude. O utsid e are the predators w h o will craw l in the w indow s, climb dow n drainpipes, pick the locks, descend from skylights, to bring the night w ith them . T h ese predators are rom anticized in, for instance, vam pire m ovies. T h e predators becom e mist and curl through barely visible cracks. T h e y bring w ith them sex and death. Their victim s recoil, resist sex, resist death, until, overcom e by the thrill of it all, they spread their legs and bare their necks and fall in love. O n ce the victim has fully subm itted, the night holds no m ore terror, because the victim is dead. She is ve ry lovely, very fem inine, and ve ry dead. T h is is the essence of so-called rom ance, w hich is rape embellished w ith m eaningful looks.

N ight is the time o f rom ance. M en, like their adored vam pires, g o acourting. M en, like vam pires, hunt. N ight licenses so-called rom ance and rom ance boils dow n to rape: forced en try into the domicile which is som etim es the hom e, alw ays the body and w h at som e call the soul.

T h e fem ale is solitary and/or sleeping. T h e male drinks from her until he is sated or until she is dead. T h e traditional flow ers o f courtship are the traditional flow ers o f the grave, delivered to the victim before the kill. T he cadaver is dressed up and m ade up and laid d ow n and ritually violated and consecrated to an eternity of being used. All distinctions o f will and personality are obliterated and w e are supposed to believe that the night, not the rapist, does the obliterating.

M en use the night to erase us. It w as C asanova, w h om m en reckon an authority, w h o w ro te that ''w hen the lamp is taken aw ay, all w om en are alike. "1 T h e annihilation o f a w o m a n s personality, individuality, will, character, is prerequisite to male sexuality, and so the night is the sacred tim e o f male sexual celebration because it is dark and in the dark it is easier not to see: not to see w h o she is. M ale sexuality, drunk on its intrinsic contem pt fo r all life, but especially for w o m e n s lives, can run wild, hu n t d ow n random victim s, use the dark for cover, find in the dark solace, sanction, and sanctuary.

N ight is magical for m en. T h e y look fo r prostitu tes and pick-ups at night. T h ey do their so-called lovem aking at night. T h e y get d ru n k

The Night and Danger and roam the streets in packs at night. T h e y fuck their w ives at night.

T h e y have their fratern ity parties at night. T h e y com m it their socalled seductions at night. T h e y dress up in w h ite sh eets and burn crosses at night. T h e in fam ous C ry sta l N igh t, w h en G erm an N azis firebom bed and vandalized and broke the w in d o w s o f Jewish shops and h om es th ro u gh o u t G e rm a n y — the C rystal N igh t, nam ed after the broken glass that covered

G erm an y w h en the night had

en ded — the C ry sta l N ight, w h en the N azis beat up or killed all the Jews they could find, all the Jews w h o had not locked th em selves in securely e n o u g h — the C ry sta l N igh t that fo resh ad o w ed the slau gh ter to co m e— is the em blem atic night. T h e values o f the day becom e the obsessions of the night. A n y hated g ro u p fears the night, because in the night all the despised are treated as w o m en are treated: as prey, targeted to be beaten or m urdered or sexually violated. W e fear the night because m en becom e m ore d an gero u s in the night.

In the U nited States, w ith its distinctly racist character, the v e ry fea r o f the dark is m anipulated, o ften sublim inally, into fear o f black, o f black m en in particular, so that the traditional association b etw een rape and black m en that is o u r national h eritage is fortified. In this co n text, the im agery o f black night su g gests that black is in h eren tly d an gerou s. In this co n text, the association of night, black m en, and rape becom es an article o f faith. N igh t, the tim e o f sex, becom es also the tim e o f race— racial fear and racial hatred. T h e black m ale, in the S o u th h u nted at n igh t to be castrated and/or lynched, becom es in the racist United States the carrier o f d anger, the carrier of rape. T h e use o f a racially despised typ e o f m ale as a scapegoat, a sym bolic fig u re em bodyin g the sexu ality o f all m en, is a com m on m ale-suprem acist strateg y. H itler did the sam e to the Jewish m ale. In the urban United States, the prostitu te population is d isproportionately m ade up o f black w o m en , streetw a lk ers w h o inhabit the night, prototypical fem ale figures, again scapegoats, sym bols carryin g the burden o f m ale-defined fem ale sexuality, of w o m an as com m od ity. A n d so, a m o n g the w o m en , nigh t is the tim e of sex and also o f race: racial exploitation and sexual exploitation are fused, indivisible. N igh t and black: sex and race: the black m en are blam ed fo r w h a t all m en do; the black w o m en are used as all w o m en are used, but th ey are sin gu larly and in ten sely punished by law and social m ores; and to u n tan gle this cruel knot, so m uch a part o f each and e v e ry night, w e will h a ve to

take back the night so that it cannot be used to destroy us by race or by sex.

N ight means, for all w om en, a choice: danger or confinem ent.

C onfin em ent is m ost often dangerous too— battered w om en are confined, a w om an raped in m arriage is likely to be raped in her ow n hom e. But in confinem ent, w e are promised a lessening of danger, and in confinem ent w e try to avoid danger. T h e h erstory of w om en has been one o f confinem ent: physical lim itation, binding, m ovem ent forbidden, action punished. N ow , again, ev e ry w h e re w e turn, the feet of w om en are bound. A w om an tied up is the literal em blem of o u r condition, and ev ery w h e re w e turn, w e see o ur condition celebrated: w om en in bondage, tied and bound. A ctor G eo rge H am ilton, one of the new C o u n t Draculae, asserts that "[e]very w om an fantasizes about a dark stran ger w h o m anacles her. W om en don't have fantasies about m arching w ith Vanessa R ed grave. "2 He doesn't seem to realize that w e do have fantasies about Vanessa R edgrave m arching w ith us. T h e erotic celebration o f w om en in bondage is the religion of o ur time; and sacred literature and devotional

films,

like

the

bound

foot,

are

ev eryw h ere.

The

significance o f bondage is that it forbids freedom of m ovem ent.

H annah A rendt w ro te that "[o]f all the specific liberties w hich m ay com e into our minds w hen w e hear the w ord 'freedom / freedom of m ovem ent is historically the oldest and also the m ost elem entary.

Being able to depart for w h ere w e will is the prototypal gestu re of being free, as lim itation of freedom o f m ovem ent has from time im m em orial been the precondition fo r enslavem ent. Freedom o f m ovem ent is also the indispensable condition for action, and it is in action that men prim arily experience freedom in the w orld . "3 T h e truth is that m en do experience freedom o f m ovem ent and freedom in action and that w om en do not. W e m ust recognize that freedom of m ovem ent is a precondition fo r freedom o f anyth in g else. It com es before freedom o f speech in im portance because w ith o u t it freedom o f speech cannot in fact exist. So w hen w e w o m en stru ggle for freedom , w e m ust begin at the beginning and fight fo r freedom of m ovem ent, w hich w e have not had and do not n o w have. In reality, w e are not allowed ou t after dark. In som e parts o f the w orld, w om en are not allowed ou t at all but w e, in this exem plary dem ocracy, are perm itted to totter around, half crippled, during the day, and fo r this,

The Night and Danger o f course, w e m ust be g ratefu l. Especially w e m ust be g ratefu l because jobs and safety depend on the expression of gratitu de th ro u gh

ch eerfu l

co n form ity,

sw eet

passivity, and subm ission

artfu lly designed to m eet the particular tastes o f the m ales w e m u st please. W e m ust be g ra te fu l— unless w e are prepared to resist co n fin em en t— to resist being locked in and tied up— to resist being bound and gagged and used and kept and kept in and pinned d ow n and conquered and taken and possessed and decked o u t like toy dolls that have to be w o u n d up to m ove at all. W e m u st be g ra te fu l— unless w e are prepared to resist the im ages o f w o m en tied and bound and hum iliated and used. W e m u st be g ra tefu l unless w e are prepared to dem an d — no, to take— freedom o f m ovem en t fo r o u rselves because w e k n o w it to be a precondition fo r e v e ry o th er freedom that w e m ust w a n t if w e w a n t freedom at all. W e m u st be g ra te fu l— unless w e are w illing to say w ith the T h ree M arias o f Portugal: "E n o u gh . /It is tim e to cry: Enough. A n d to form a barricade w ith o u r bodies. "4 I th in k that w e have been g ra tefu l fo r the small favo rs o f m en long en ou gh . I th in k that w e are sick to death of being gra tefu l. It is as if w e are forced to play Russian roulette; each night, a g u n is placed against o u r tem ples. Each day, w e are stran gely g ra tefu l to be alive. Each day w e fo rg e t that one night it will be o u r turn , the random will no lon ger be random but specific and personal, it will be m e o r it will be you or it will be som eone that w e love perhaps m ore than w e love ourselves.

Each day w e fo rg et that w e barter e v e ry th in g w e have and g e t n ext to no th in g in return. Each d ay w e m ake do, and each night w e becom e captive o r o u tla w — likely to be h u rt eith er w a y . It is tim e to cry "E n o u gh , " but it is not en o u g h to cry "E n o u gh . " W e m u st use o u r bodies to say "E n o u gh "— w e m u st fo rm a barricade w ith our bodies, but th e barricade m u st m ove as the ocean m oves and be form idable as the ocean is form idable. W e m u st use o u r collective stren g th and passion and en du ran ce to take back this night and e v e ry nigh t so that life will be w o rth living and so that h u m an d ignity will be a reality.

W hat w e do h ere ton igh t is that sim ple, that difficult, and that im portan t.

Notes 1. Giacomo Casanova, History of My Life, trans. Willard R. Trask (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1971), Vol. 11, p. 15.

2. Jean Cox Penn and Jill Barber, "The New Draculas Become the Kinkiest Sex Symbols Ever," Us, Vol. Ill, No. 7, p. 27.

3. Hannah Arendt, Men in Dark Times (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1968), p. 9.

4. Maria Isabel Barreno, Maria Teresa Horta, and Maria Velhoda Costa, The Three Marias: New Portuguese Letters, trans. Helen R. Lane (New York: Bantam Books, 1976), p. 275.

Pornography and Grief 1978

P o rn o g ra p h y and G rie f was written as a speech fo r a Take Back the Night March that was part of the first feminist conference on pornography in the United States in San Francisco, November 1978. Organized by the now defunct Women Against Violence in Pornography and Media (W A V P M ), over 5000 women from thirty states participated and we shut down San Francisco's pornography district for one night. The ground was taken but not held.

I

search ed

fo r

som ethin g

to say h ere tod ay qu ite d ifferen t

from w h a t I am goin g to say. I w an ted to com e h ere m ilitant

and proud and a n g ry as hell. B u t m ore and m ore, I find that a n g er is a pale sh a d o w n ext to the g rief I feel. If a w o m an has an y sense o f h er o w n intrinsic w o rth , seeing po rn ograp h y in small bits and pieces can bring h er to a u sefu l rage. S tu d yin g p o rn o g rap h y in q u a n tity and depth, as I h ave been doing fo r m ore m on ths than I care to rem em b er, will tu rn that sam e w o m an in to a m ou rn er.

T h e p o rn ograp h y itself is vile. T o ch aracterize it any o th e r w a y w ou ld be to lie. N o plague o f m ale intellectualism s and sophistries can ch an ge o r hide that sim ple fact. G e o r g e s Bataille, a ph ilosoph er o f p o rn o g rap h y (w hich he calls "eroticism "), puts it clearly: "In essence, th e dom ain o f eroticism is the dom ain o f violence, o f violation . "1 M r Bataille, unlike so m an y o f his peers, is goo d en o u g h to m ake explicit that th e w h o le idea is to violate the fem ale. U sing th e lan gu age o f grand eu phem ism so popular w ith m ale intellectuals w h o w rite on the subject o f p o rn ograp h y, Bataille in form s us th at "[t]he passive, fem ale side is essentially the o n e that is dissolved as a separate e n tity . "2 T o be "dissolved"— by an y m eans n ecessa ry — is the role o f

w om en in pornography. T he great male scientists and philosophers o f sexuality, including Kinsey, H avelock Ellis, Wilhelm Reich, and Freud, uphold this view o f our purpose and destiny. T h e great male w riters use language m ore or less beautifully to create us in selfserving fragm ents, half-"dissolved" as it w ere, and then proceed to "dissolve" us all the w ay, by any m eans necessary. T h e biographers of the great male artists celebrate the real life atrocities those m en have com m itted against us, as if those atrocities are central to the m aking of art. And in history, as men have lived it, they have "dissolved" u s— by any m eans necessary. T h e slicing o f our skins and the rattling of o ur bones are the energizing sources of m ale-defined art and science, as they are the essential content of pornography. T h e visceral experience of a hatred of w om en that literally kn ow s no bounds has put me beyond anger and beyond tears; I can only speak to you from grief.

We all expected the world to be different than it is, didn't w e? N o m atter w hat material or em otional deprivation w e have experienced as children or as adults, no m atter w h at w e understood from history or from the testim onies o f living persons about h o w people su ffer and w h y, w e all believed, h o w ever privately, in hum an possibility. Som e o f us believed in art, or literature, or music, or religion, or revolution, or in children, or in the redeem ing potential o f eroticism or affection.

N o m atter w h at w e kn ew of cruelty, w e all believed in kindness; and no m atter w h at w e k n ew o f hatred, w e all believed in friendship or love. N ot one of us could have imagined or w ould have believed the simple facts of life as w e have com e to kn o w them : the rapacity of male greed for dom inance; the m alignancy of male suprem acy; the virulent contem pt for w om en that is the very foundation of the culture in w hich w e live. T h e W om en's M ovem en t has forced us all to face the facts, but no m atter h o w brave and clear-sighted w e are, no m atter h o w far w e are willing to go or are forced to g o in view ing reality w ith ou t rom ance or illusion, w e are sim ply overw h elm ed by the male hatred o f o u r kind, its m orbidity, its com pulsiveness, its obsessiveness, its celebration o f itself in ev ery detail o f life and culture. W e think that w e have grasped this hatred once and fo r all, seen it in its spectacular cruelty, learned its ev e ry secret, got used to it or risen above it or organized against it so as to be protected from its w o rst excesses. We think that w e k n o w all there is to k n o w about

Pornography and Grief w h at men do to w o m en , even if w e cannot im agine w h y they do w h at they do, w h en som eth in g happens that sim ply drives us mad, out of our m inds, so that w e are again im prisoned like caged anim als in the num bing reality of male control, m ale reven ge against no one kn o w s w h at, male hatred o f o u r ve ry being.

O n e can k n o w ev ery th in g and still not im agine sn u ff films. O n e can k n o w e v ery th in g and still be shocked and terrified w h en a man w h o attem pted to m ake sn u ff film s is released, despite the testim on y o f the w o m en u nd ercover agen ts w h o m he w anted to torture, m urder, and, of course, film. O n e can k n o w e v ery th in g and still be stunn ed and paralyzed w h en one m eets a child w h o is bein g co n tin u o usly raped by h er fath er or som e close m ale relative. O n e can k n o w e v ery th in g and still be reduced to sp utterin g like an idiot w h en a w o m an is prosecuted for attem p tin g to abort h erself w ith knittin g needles, o r w h en a w o m an is im prisoned fo r killing a m an w h o has raped or tortured her, or is raping or tortu rin g her. O n e can k n o w e v e ry th in g and still w a n t to kill and be dead sim u ltan eo u sly w h en one sees a celebratory picture of a w o m an being g rou n d up in a m eat grin d er on the co ver of a national m agazine, no m atter h o w putrid the m agazine. O n e can k n o w ev ery th in g and still so m ew h ere inside refu se to believe that the personal, social, cu ltu rally sanctioned violence

against

w o m en

is unlim ited, unpredictable, pervasive,

constan t, ruthless, and happily and unselfconsciou sly sadistic. O n e can k n o w ev ery th in g and still be unable to accept the fact that sex and m u rd er are fused in the m ale consciousness, so that the one w ith o u t the im m inent possibility o f the o th er is unthinkable and im possible.

O n e can k n o w ev ery th in g and still, at bottom , refu se to accept that the annihilation of w o m en is the source o f m eaning and identity fo r m en. O n e can k n o w ev ery th in g and still w a n t d esp erately to k n o w n oth in g because to face w h a t w e k n o w is to qu estion w h e th e r life is w o rth a n yth in g at all.

T h e p orn ographers, m odern and ancient, visual and literary, vu lgar and aristocratic, put fo rth one consistent proposition: erotic pleasure fo r m en is derived from and predicated on the savage d estruction of w o m en . A s the w orld's m ost honored po rn ograp h er, the M arqu is de Sade (called by m ale scholars "T h e D ivine M arquis"), w ro te in one of his m ore restrained and civil m om en ts: "T h ere's not a w o m an on earth w ho'd e v er h ave had cause to com plain o f m y services if I'd been

sure of being able to kill her a fterw a rd ."3 T h e eroticization of m urder is the essence of pornography, as it is the essence o f life. T h e torturer m ay be a policeman tearing the fingernails o ff a victim in a prison cell or a so-called normal man engaged in the project o f attem pting to fuck a w om an to death. T h e fact is that the process of killing— and both rape and battery are steps in that process— is the prime sexual act for men in reality and/or in im agination. W om en as a class m ust remain in bondage, subject to the sexual will o f m en, because the know ledge of an imperial right to kill, w h eth er exercised to the fullest exten t or just part w ay, is necessary to fuel sexual appetite and behavior. W ithout w om en as potential o r actual victim s, men are, in the current sanitized jargon, "sexually d ysfunctional. " T h is sam e m otif also operates am ong male hom osexuals, w h ere force and/or convention designate som e males as fem ale or fem inized. T h e plethora o f leather and chains am ong male hom osexuals, and the new ly fashionable defenses of organized rings o f boy prostitution by supposedly radical gay m en, are testim ony to the fixedness o f the male com pulsion to dom inate and d estroy that is the source o f sexual pleasure fo r men.

T h e m ost terrible thing about porn ography is that it tells male truth. T h e m ost insidious thing about porn ograph y is that it tells male truth as if it w ere universal truth. T h o se depictions o f w om en in chains being tortured are supposed to represent o u r deepest erotic aspirations. And som e o f us believe it, don't w e? T h e m ost im portant thing about pornography is that the values in it are the com m on values o f men. This is the crucial fact that both the male R ight and the male Left, in their differing but m utually reinforcing w ays, w ant to keep hidden from w om en. T h e male R ight w an ts to hide the pornography, and the male Left w an ts to hide its m eaning. Both w an t access to porn ography so that m en can be encouraged and energized by it. T h e Right w ants secret access; the Left w ants public access. But w h e th er w e see the porn ography or not, the values expressed in it are the values expressed in the acts of rape and w ife-beating, in the legal system , in religion, in art and in literature, in system atic econom ic discrim ination against w om en, in the m oribund academ ies, and by the good and w ise and kind and enlightened in all o f these fields and areas. P ornography is not a gen re o f expression separate and d ifferen t from the rest of life; it is a g en re of expression fully in

Pornography and Grief h arm o n y w ith any cu ltu re in w hich it flourishes. T h is is so w h e th e r it is legal or illegal. A nd , in either case, po rn ograp h y fu n ctions to perpetu ate m ale suprem acy and crim es o f violence against w o m en because it conditions, trains, educates, and inspires m en to despise w o m en , to use w o m en , to h u rt w om en . P orn ograp h y exists because m en despise w o m en , and m en despise w o m en in part because p o rn ograph y exists.

For m yself, p o rn ograph y has defeated m e in a w a y that, at least so far, life has not. W h atev er stru ggles and difficulties I h ave had in m y life, I h ave alw ays w anted to find a w a y to g o on even if I did not k n o w h o w , to live th ro u gh one m ore day, to learn one m ore thin g, to take one m ore w alk, to read one m ore book, to w rite o n e m ore paragraph, to see one m ore friend, to love one m ore tim e. W h en I read o r see p orn ography, I w a n t e v ery th in g to stop. W h y, I ask, w h y are th ey so dam ned cruel and so dam ned proud o f it? Som etim es, a detail d rives me mad. T h e re is a series o f photographs: a w o m an slicing her breasts w ith a knife, sm earing h er o w n blood on h er o w n body, sticking a sw ord up h er vagina. A nd she is smiling. A n d it is the sm ile th at drives me mad. T h ere is a record album plastered all o v e r a h u ge display w in d o w . T h e picture on the album is a profile v ie w o f a w o m a n s thighs. H er crotch is su ggested because w e k n o w it is there; it is not sh o w n . T h e title o f th e album is "P lu g M e to D e a th . " A n d it is the use o f the first person that drives m e m ad. "P lug M e to D e a th . " T h e arrogance. T h e cold-blooded arrogance. A nd h o w can it g o on like this, senseless, en tirely brutal, inane, d ay a fter day and year a fter year, these im ages and ideas and valu es pou rin g o u t, packaged, b o u gh t and sold, prom oted, en d u rin g on and on, and no one stops it, and o u r darling boy intellectuals defen d it, and elegan t radical la w yers a rg u e fo r it, and m en o f e v e ry sort can n ot and will not live w ith o u t it.

A nd life, w hich m eans e v ery th in g to me, becom es m eaningless, because these celebrations o f cru elty d estro y m y v e ry capacity to feel and to care and to hope. I h ate the p o rn ograp h ers m ost o f all for d ep rivin g m e o f hope.

T h e psychic violence in p o rn o g rap h y is unbearable in and o f itself.

It acts on one like a bludgeon until one's sensibility is pum m elled flat and one's h eart g o es dead. O n e becom es num b. E very th in g stops, and one looks at the pages o r pictures and kn o w s: this is w h a t m en w a n t, and this is w h a t m en h ave had, and this is w h a t m en will not g iv e up.

A s lesbian-fem inist Karla Jay pointed o ut in an article called "Pot, Porn, and the Politics of Pleasure."' men will give up grapes and lettuce and orange juice and Portuguese w ine and tuna fish, but m en will not give up pornography. And yes, one w an ts to take it from them , to burn it, to rip it up, bomb it, raze their theaters and publishing houses to the ground. O n e can be part of a revolutionary m ovem ent or one can m ourn. Perhaps I have found the real source o f m y grief: w e have not yet becom e a revolutionary m ovem ent.

Tonigh t w e are going to w alk together, all of us, to take back the night, as w om en have in cities all over the world, because in every sense none of us can walk alone. E very w om an w alking alone is a target. Every w om an w alking alone is hunted, harassed, time after tim e harm ed by psychic or physical violence. O n ly by w alking together can w e w alk at all w ith any sense o f safety, dignity, or freedom . T onight, w alking together, w e will proclaim to the rapists and

pornographers and

w om an-batterers

that

their days are

num bered and our time has com e. And tom orrow , w h at will w e do tom orrow ? Because, sisters, the truth is that w e have to take back the night ev ery night, or the night will never be ours. And once w e have conquered the dark, w e have to reach for the light, to take the day and m ake it ours. This is our choice, and this is our necessity. It is a revolutionary choice, and it is a revolutionary necessity. For us, the tw o are indivisible, as w e m ust be indivisible in our fight for freedom .

M an y of us have walked m any miles already— brave, hard m iles— but w e have not gone far enough. Tonigh t, w ith ev ery breath and every step, w e m ust com m it ourselves to going the distance: to tran sfo rm ­ ing this earth on which w e w alk from prison and tom b into our rightful and joyous hom e. This w e m ust do and this w e will do, for ou r o w n sakes and for the sake of every w om an w h o has ev er lived.

Notes 1. Georges Bataille, Death and Sensuality (New York: Ballantine Books, Inc., 1969), p. 10.

2. Bataille, Death and Sensuality, p. 11.

3. Donatien-Alphonse-Francois de Sade, Juliette, trans. Austryn Wainhouse (New York: Grove Press, Inc., 1976), p. 404.

WO R I DS Live as domestic a life as possible. Have your child with you all the time__ Lie down an hour after each meal. Have but two hours' intellectual life a day. And never touch pen, brush or pencil as long as you live.

Dr S. Weir Mitchell's prescription for Charlotte Perkins Gilman

The Power of Words 1978

In the spring of 19 7 8 , the M a s s a c h u s e tts D aily C o lleg ia n , the school newspaper of the

University of Massachusetts at Amherst, became a

battleground for women's rights. Women journalists reporting on so-called women's issues, including, as I remember, the DES health emergency, were censored: their stories were suppressed or cut to pieces. They were lectured sanctimoniously about free speech and the high calling of objective journalism by boy editors even as they were being denied access to print. The women fought back.

Julie Melrose, women's editor, was threatened and an atmosphere of violence was palpable. The male editors especially aroused anger against the women by calling them lesbians. T h e P o w e r o f W ord s is about the hate campaign these male editors waged. Instead of being intimidated, the women occupied the offices of the newspaper and appropriated its equipment to put out an insurgent newspaper (in which T h e P o w e r o f W o rd s was published). They set up a blockade, physically resisting efforts to remove them. They held the offices for twelve days.

The Chancellor of the University set up a commission to investigate their charges. His commission recommended separate women's pages and autonomy.

The Chancellor refused to implement the recommendations. A few years ago, a man was made women's editor. The claim was that no qualified woman existed.

T h e P o w e r o f W o rd s was given as a speech at a rally to support the occupiers when they were still inside. Robin Morgan and Janice Raymond also spoke; and Simone de Beauvoir sent a message of solidarity. Feminists do fight for freedom of speech when it is a real fight for real freedom of real speech.

n B e r lin , in the late 1920s, Joseph G oebb els, soon to be N azi

I

M in ister o f Propaganda u nd er H itler, o rgan ized an anti-Sem itic

propaganda cam paign that took the fo rm o f cartoon s. T h e se carto on s

all ridiculed one individual a Jewish police official. In one cartoon this man, broadly caricatured w ith a huge, crooked nose and derisively nicknamed "Isidor," is sitting on a pavem ent. He is leaning against a lamppost. A rope is around his neck. Flags em blazoned w ith sw astikas fly from

the rooftops. T h e caption reads: "For him too, Ash

W ednesday will co m e. " "Isidor" becam e a m ocking synonym for Jew; the cartoons became a vehicle for attributing repulsive characteristics and behaviors to Jews as a group. T h e police official sued G oebbels to stop publication o f the libelous, malicious material. Goebbels, m aking full use of democratic

protections ensuring free speech, w as

acquitted. O n appeal, his acquittal w as upheld because the court equated the w ord Jew w ith Protestant or Catholic. If there w as no insult involved in calling a Protestant a Protestant, h o w could there be injury in calling a Jew a Jew? In a world w ith no history o f persecuting Jews because they are Jews, the decision would have made sense. But in this world, the one w e still live in, all w ords do not have equal w eight. Som e w ords can be used to provoke the deepest hatred, the m ost resilient impulses toward slaughter. Jew is one such w ord. G oebbels used it cynically, w ith

cunning,

to

provoke

a genocide of

nearly

unparalleled

m onstrosity.

A no th er w ord that can be manipulated to induce both fear and violence is the w ord lesbian. In a tim e of burgeoning fem inism, it is this w ord that spreaders of hate spit, w hisper, and shout w ith varying degrees of contem pt, ridicule, and threat.

We cannot afford to m ake the m istake made by the pre-Nazi G erm an court: w e cannot afford to overlook the real pow er and the real m eaning of w ords or the real uses to w hich w ords are put.

It is no secret that fear and hatred o f hom osexuals perm eate our society. But the contem pt for lesbians is distinct. It is directly rooted in the abhorrence o f the self-defined w om an , the self-determ ining w om an, the w om an w h o is not controlled by male need, im perative, or manipulation. C o n tem p t fo r lesbians is m ost often a political repudiation of w om en w h o organize in their o w n behalf to achieve public presence, significant pow er, visible integrity.

Enemies o f w om en, those w h o are determ ined to d eny us freedom and dignity, use the w ord lesbian to provoke a hatred o f w om en w h o do not conform . T his hatred rum bles ev ery w h e re. This hatred is

The Power of Words sustained and expressed by virtually e v e ry institution. W hen male p o w er is challenged, this hatred can be intensified and inflam ed so that it is volatile, palpable. T h e th reat is that this hatred will explode into violence. T h e th reat is om n ipresen t because violence against w o m en is culturally applauded. A nd so the w ord lesbian, hurled or w hispered as accusation, is used to focus male hostility on w o m en w h o dare to rebel, and it is also used to frigh ten and bully w o m en w h o h ave not yet rebelled.

W hen a w o rd is used to p rovok e hatred, it does not m atter w h a t the w ord actually m eans. W hat m atters is only w h a t the haters insist it m ean s— the m eaning th ey give it, the com m on prejudices th ey exploit. In the case o f the w ord lesbian, the haters use it to im pute a g ro ss, deviant m asculinity to the uppity w o m an w h o insists on taking h er place in the w orld. T o w o m en raised to be beautiful, com pliant, and desirable (all in male term s), the w o rd lesbian con n otes a foul, repellent abnorm ality. It brings up w o m en 's deep dread o f exile, isolation, and punishm ent. For w o m en controlled by m en, it m eans dam nation.

It is h o rrifyin g, but not surprising, that the m ales on

the

Collegian— these boys w h o before yo u r v e ry e y es are becom ing m en — have used the w o rd lesbian in the m alicious w a y I h ave just described. W ith contem pt and ridicule, th ey h ave been w a g in g a fu rtive, ruthless propaganda cam paign against the fem inist occupiers.

T h e y are using the w ord lesbian to rouse the m ost viru len t w o m an h atin g on this cam pus. T h e y are using the w o rd lesbian to direct m ale hostility and aggression against the fem inist occupiers. T h e y are using the w o rd lesbian to dism iss e v e ry just ch arge the fem inist occupiers h ave m ade against them . T h e y are using the w o rd lesbian to ju stify their o w n rigid opposition to the sim ple and em in en tly reasonable dem ands these w o m en h ave m ade. T h e y are u sing the w ord lesbian to hide the tru e h isto ry o f their o w n w o m an -h a tin g m alice in run n in g that corru pt, preten tiou s, u tterly hypocritical new sp aper. T h e y are using the w o rd lesbian to co ver o ver the th reats o f violence m ade b efore the occupation against the head o f the W om en 's

D e p a rtm e n t— th reats o f violence m ade by h er m ale

colleagues. T h e y are using the w o rd lesbian to co ver up their consistent, belligerent refusal to publish crucial w o m en 's new s. A nd, painfully but inevitably, they are u sing the w o rd lesbian to divide

w o m en from w om en, to keep w om en staffers in line, to discourage them from associating w ith fem inists or thinking for them selves.

Intimidated by the malicious use of the w ord lesbian, w om en are afraid of guilt by association. H earing the derision and the threats, good girls, sm art girls, do w h at is expected of them .

Feminists are occupying the offices o f the Collegian because w ords m atter. W ords can be used to educate, to clarify, to inform , to illuminate. W ords can also be used to intimidate, to threaten, to insult, to coerce, to incite hatred, to encourage ignorance. W ords can make us better or w orse people, m ore com passionate or m ore prejudiced, m ore generous or m ore cruel.

W ords m atter because w ords

significantly determ ine w h at w e k n o w and w h at w e do. W ords change us or keep us the same. W om en, deprived of words, are deprived of life. W om en, deprived o f a forum for words, are deprived o f the pow er necessary to ensure both survival and well-being.

W hen all new s pertaining to w om en is om itted from a newspaper, o r distorted beyond recognition, a crime is being com m itted against w om en. It is a bitter irony that this crim e is euphem istically called "objective journalism . " It is another bitter irony that w h en w om en attem pt to stop the crime, they are accused of im peding som ething called "free speech. " It is interesting that the phrase 'objective journalism " alw ays means the exclusion of hard-hitting w o m e n s n ew s and it is curious h o w the valiant defenders o f so-called free speech threaten violence to shut w om en up. M arxists call these perplexing phenom ena "contradictions. " Feminists call them facts.

I say to you that the men w h o control the Collegian have used w ords to foster ignorance and to encourage bigotry; to keep w om en invisible, m isinform ed, and silent; to threaten and bully; to ridicule and dem ean. It is sham eful to continue to tolerate their flagrant contem pt for w om en, for lesbians; for w ords, for new s, for simple fairness and equity. It is honorable and right to take from them the p o w er they have so abused. I hope that you will strip them o f it altogether. In the w ords o f the great Em m eline Pankhurst, "I incite this m eeting to rebellion. "

A Woman Writer and Pornography 1980

A part of this essay was published as an Afterword to both the British and German editions of P o rn o g ra p h y : M en P o ssessin g W o m en . In the United States, the whole essay was published in a small literary review. I wonder if even a thousand people had the opportunity to read it. It took me a year to find that small outlet. Looking back on this essay now, I can only say that I considerably understated the effects pornography has had on me; no doubt I was afraid of being ridiculed. I know some of the most brilliant, and certainly the strongest, women of my time, and there is nothing unique in pornography's effect on me.

W

ritin g

is

n o t

a happy profession. T h e w rite r lives and w o rk s

in solitude, no m atter h o w m an y people su rrou n d her. H er

m ost inten sely lived ho u rs are spent w ith herself. T h e pleasures and pains o f w ritin g are talked around or about but not shared. H er friends do not k n o w w h a t she does or h o w she does it. Like ev e ry o n e else, th ey see on ly the results. T h e problem s o f h er w o rk are unique.

T h e solution to one sentence is not the solution to an y o th e r sentence. N o one else kn o w s w h e re she is goin g until she h erself has g o tten there. W hen o th ers are contem plating the results, she is on h er n ext project, all alone again. H er colleagues and com p etitors fo r th e m ost part are dead. T h e w o rk itself involves using the mind in an inten se and punishing w a y . T h e solitude dem anded by the w o rk is e x tre m e in and o f itself. O th e rs rarely live so alone, so self-created.

Sh e is not a m ale w riter, w h ich m eans that she cleans h er o w n toilet and does h er o w n laundry. If she is ru th less and singlem inded, she does o n ly her o w n portion o f the h o u sew o rk , not his or theirs. T h e

rew ards o f her w o rk are in her w ork. T here are no w eekly wages, no health benefits, no prom otions, no cost of living raises, no job descriptions. W hen she does actually earn m oney, it will be in a lum p sum that m ust presum ably last forever. If she becom es a "celebrity" or even "fam ous, " she m ay gain easier access to print or to m oney but lose that honest sense o f privacy w ithou t which even solitude is meaningless. As m ore and m ore people k n o w her w riting, th ey think th ey kn o w her. H er w riting goes o ut into the w orld brazen and intractable as she faces the blank page in w h at at best is a room of her ow n.

H er mind and im agination grind on, facing life, facing

know ledge, facing creation, while the w orld around her spits on or chatters about w hat she has already done and nearly forgotten.

W riting is absolutely extrem e, at once irredeem ably individual and irredeem ably social. N o w riter can explain h o w she does w h at she does so that another can replicate the process and com e up w ith the sam e results; at the same time, only throu gh reading brave and original w riters can one learn h o w to write.

W hen I go into a bookstore, especially a w o m e n s bookstore, I try to stand the lives behind the books in a line: add up the years it took to w rite all those books, the days and hours spent, the minds used and used, the material resources gon e through, the m ental trouble, the difficulty of the lives, the sorrow , the great battles behind the books even before the battle for publication could begin. A nd also the pleasure. T h e pleasure of the w riting, of m oving from here to there, o f going deeper, of seeing and know in g, of show ing. D espite the sexual hysteria of o ur time, a w om an w r ite rs pleasure is not to be m easured in orgasm s but in w riting. It is a pleasure that cannot be shared. T h e read ers pleasure is d ifferent and cheaper.

Each book in a w r ite rs life is anoth er circle o f hell: and people choose hell because th ey love pleasure. A w r ite rs hell is a w riter's pleasure not because w riters are sim ple-minded m asochists but because w riters, w h a tever their ideologies or protestations, are w orldly: mired in tim e and m eaning; not just entranced by the display o f the m aterial w orld or, in contem porary jargon, "the gam es people play, " but infatuated and obsessed w ith the m uck o f real life. W riters are arrogant and greedy and am bitious in that experience is not en ou gh, sensation is not en ou gh, know led ge is not enough: o ne m ust rem ake it all, have it all one m ore time but in an other w ay, a w a y that

A Woman Writer and Pornography cannot be translated or described, only done and experienced. W riting is not one step rem oved from life; it is as intense and consum in g as an yth in g life has to offer. But love happens, earth qu akes happen: one m ust decide to w rite. It is not an accident. It is willed and it sets one apart. Especially if one is a w om an , one is set apart. It is in the privacy and the greed and the punishm ent of the w ritin g itself that one is set apart.

In w ritin g m y n ew book, I experienced the m ost intense isolation I h ave k n o w n as a w riter. I lived in a w orld of pictu res— w o m e n s bodies displayed, w o m en hunched and spread and hanged and pulled and tied and c u t— and in a w orld of books— gan g rape, pair rape, m an on w o m an rape, lesbian rape, anim al on w o m an rape, evisceration, torture, penetration, excrem ent, urine, and bad prose. I w orked on the book for three years. A fte r the first year a friend en tered m y room and rem arked that she w a s m ore at ease in the local porn stores.

A half a year later, the friend w ith w h o m I lived asked m e qu ietly and sincerely to refrain from sh o w in g him an y m aterial I m igh t be w o rk in g on and also, please, to keep it out of any room o th er than m y o w n . I have good and kind friends. T h eir n erves could not w ith stan d even the glim pses th ey got. I w a s im m ersed in it.

U nder the best o f circum stances, I do not h ave pleasant dream s. I w o rk w hile I sleep. Life goes on, aw a k e or asleep. I spent eigh t m on ths stu d yin g the M arqu is de Sade. I spent eigh t m on ths d ream ing Sadean dream s. Let the m en joke: these w e re not "erotic" dream s; dream s of tortu re are dream s o f hate, in this case the hate being used against fem ale bodies, the in stru m en ts o f hate (metal o r flesh) being used to maim. O n ly one w o m an understood me. Sh e had w o rk ed as an editor on the collected vo lu m es o f Sade's w o rk at G ro v e Press. A fte r com pleting the editing of the first vo lum e, she attended an editorial m eeting w h e re plans w e re being m ade to do a second volum e. Sh e explained that she couldn't stand the nightm ares. "W e should start m aking m ovies o f y o u r n ig h tm ares, " the ch ief editor told her. T h e y did.

But the nightm ares w ere the least o f it. T h e reading itself m ade m e physically sick. I becam e n a u se o u s— if I w e re m ale, I m igh t dare to say full of fear and trem bling and sick u n to death. T h e P resid e n ts C o m m ission on P orn o grap h y and O b sce n ity (1970) reported this as a freq u en t effect o f p o rn ograp h y on w o m en and then concluded that

pornography had no harm ful consequences. Personally I consider nausea a harm ful consequence, not trivial w h en the life involved is one's o w n . I becam e frightened and anxious and easily irritable. But the w o rst w as that I retreated into silence. I felt that I could not m ake m yself understood, that no one w ould k n o w or care, and that I could not risk being considered ridiculous. T h e endless struggle o f the w om an w riter to be taken seriously, to be respected, begins long before any w o rk is in print. It begins in the silence and solitude o f her o w n mind w hen that mind m ust diagram and dissect sexual horror.

M y w ork on Sade came to an end, but not before I nearly collapsed from fatigue: physical fatigue because I hated to sleep; physical fatigue because I w as often physically sick from the material; m ental fatigue because I took on the w hole male intellectual tradition that has lionized Sade; but also m oral fatigue, the fatigue that com es from confronting the very w o rst sexual aspirations of m en articulated by Sade in graphic detail, the fatigue engendered by sexual cruelty.

T h e photographs I had to study changed m y w hole relationship to the physical world in which I live. For me, a telephone becam e a dildo, the telephone w ire an instrum ent o f bondage; a hair d ryer becam e a dildo— those hair d ryers euphem istically nam ed "pistols"; scissors w e re no longer associated w ith cuttin g paper but w e re poised at the vagina's opening. I saw so m any photographs o f com m on household objects being used as sexual w eapons against w o m en that I despaired o f ever returning to m y once simple ideas o f function. I developed a new visual vocabulary, one that few w om en have at all, one that male consum ers o f pornography carry w ith them all the time: any m undane object can be turned into an eroticized object— an object that can be used to hu rt w om en in a sexual co n text w ith a sexual purpose

and

a

sexual

m eaning.

T his

increased

m y isolation

significantly, since m y friends th ou gh t I w a s m aking bad jokes w h en I recoiled at certain unselfconscious m anipulations o f a hair dryer, fo r instance. A male friend handed me a telephone in an extrem ely abrupt w ay. "D on't you ever push that thing at me again, " I said in real alarm , know in g w h ereo f I spoke. He, hating pornography, did not.

I had to study the photographs to w rite about them . I stared at them to analyze them . It took me a long tim e to see w h a t w as in them because I n ever expected to see w h a t w as there, and expectation is

A Woman Writer and Pornography essential to accurate perception. I had to learn. A d o o rw a y is a doorw ay. O n e w alks th ro u gh it. A d o o rw a y takes on a d ifferen t significance w h en one sees w om an after w om an h angin g from d oo rw ays. A lighting fix tu re is fo r light until one sees w om an after w om an h u n g from lighting fixtures. T h e com m onplace w orld does not just becom e sinister; it becom es d isgusting, repellent. Pliers are for loosening bolts until one sees them cu ttin g into w o m en 's breasts.

Saran W rap is for preservin g food until one sees a person m um m ified in it.

A gain, the nausea, the isolation, the despair. But also, increasingly, a rage that had n o w h e re to go, and a sense o f boredom th ro u gh it all at the m indless and endless repetition in the photographs. N o m atter h o w m an y tim es w o m en had been h u n g from light fix tu res or d oo rw ays, there w e re alw ay s m ore m agazines w ith m ore o f the same. A friend once said to m e about heroin: "T h e w o rst thing about it is the endless repetition. " O n e can say the sam e about p orn ograph y, excep t that it goes beyond an yth in g that one can repeatedly do to oneself: p o rn ograp h y is w h a t m en do to w o m en . A n d the m undane w orld in w h ich m en live is full of d o o rw a ys and light fix tu res and telephones, w hich m ay be w h y the m ost pervasive abuse of w o m en takes place in the hom e.

But the w o rst effect on me w as a generalized m isanthropy: I could no lon ger tru st anyon e's en thu siasm s, intellectual, sexual, esthetic, political. U nderneath, w h o w e re th ey and w ou ld the w o m an h an gin g in the d o o rw a y m atter to th em ? I felt as if I had w alked o u t on to a sandbar not k n o w in g it to be a sandbar, thinking it m erely the shore.

T im e passed and the sea crept up all around, and I did not see it because I had learned to hate the shore. If I sw am and sw am and sw am to save m yself, w h a t w ou ld I find if I reached the sh ore? W ould there be an yon e there? O r w ou ld it be desolation? A sm artass rem ark about p o rn og rap h y w a s desolation. A trivialization of p o rn o g rap h y w a s desolation. A n en thu siasm fo r p o rn ograp h y w a s desolation. A d etach m en t from p o rn og rap h y w as desolation. A n indifferen ce to p o rn og rap h y w a s desolation. M en m ade clever small talk. W om en did not kn o w . It took ev e ry th in g I had som etim es to dare to talk to a friend about w h a t I had seen. I had been a hopefu l radical. N o w I am not. P orn o grap h y has infected me. O n ce I w as a child and I dream ed of freedom . N o w I am an adult and I see w h a t m y dream s h ave com e

to: pornography. So, while I cannot help m y sleeping nightm ares, I h ave given up m any w aking dream s. A s a w orldly w rite r— mired in tim e and m eaning, infatuated and obsessed w ith the m uck of real life— I decided that I wanted w om en to see w h at I saw . This m ay be the m ost ruthless choice I have ever made. But in the privacy of w riting, it w as the only choice that gave me the pleasure o f w riting, that greedy, arrogant pleasure: it w as the only choice that enabled me to trium ph over m y subject by show in g it, rem aking it, turning it into som ething that w e define and use rather than letting it remain som ething that defines and uses us. W riting is not a happy profession.

It is viciously individual: I, the author, insist that I stand in fo r us, w om en. In so doing, I insist on the ultim ate social m eaning o f w riting: in facing the nightm are, I w an t another generation of w om en to be able to reclaim the dream s o f freedom that pornography has taken from me.

Susannah Cibber 1978

1 read Mary Nash's wonderful book, T h e P ro vok ed W ife, the biography of actress Susannah Cibber, just by accident, because I read a lot without much plan. I loved the book and wanted other women to know about it so I wrote a review of it. I was never able to find a publisher for the review and the book has been out of bookstores for years. Another lost woman lost again in another lost book. No wonder being a found object sounds good to some women.

The Provoked Wife by Mary Nash (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1977) ig h t n o w

,

i

am doing research fo r a book on porn ograp h y. I am

reading

in

h istory, philosophy, d evelopm ental p sych o logy,

R

law , literature, and theater. T h e w o rk is o n ero u s and o ften terribly depressing. T h e

w o rst is reading the g reat sexual p ro p h e ts—

H avelock Ellis, so-called fem inist; K insey, so-called sexual liberal; D. H. L aw ren ce, so-called sexual visionary; and so on, ad nauseam .

W ith ou t exception, th ese pioneers o f "freed o m " are apologists fo r or advocates o f rape and brutality. T h eir hatred of w o m en perm eates their theories, investigation s, discoveries. But one vein of research has given m e that deep pleasure o f seeing w o m en truly revealed: reading biographies and autobiograph ies o f fine actresses, m ost of them long fo rgo tten , th ose w o m en w h o project fem ale presence on a stage even as they p ortray fem ale su fferin g, degradation, and the pathetic dram a o f being the conqu ered . N o book has m oved m e m ore deeply than M ary N a s h s sensitive and beau tifully w ritten life of Su san n ah C ib b er, a su perb e ig h tee n th -ce n tu ry actress w h o se life has

been buried in obscurity, even as the legend o f her m ajor leading man, David Garrick, has continued to g ro w o ver the centuries. She w as the great actress of her time. In her acting, she embodied a rare and translucent integrity. And no contem porary w om an can read her story w ithout also recognizing that she w as a great wom an, a su rvivor as well as an endurer, one w h o in her private dignity transcended (he victim izing circum stances of her personal life.

In Cibber's time, w ives and children w ere chattel property, and it w as the custom to make as m uch profit from them as possible.

Children w ere leased or sold into labor. C ib b e rs father, recognizing her talent as a singer, forced her onto the stage. H er brother, Thom as A rne, a gifted com poser, exploited her talent to establish his ow n fame. But she excelled him in her singular capacity to discipline her talent, and soon she w as recognized in her o w n right. Her father, as w as the custom , forced her into m arriage w ith Theophilus Cibber, an actor

and

ambitious

hustler

w h ose

profligacy— rightly

called

vice— had slow ly killed his first w ife, also an actress until her husband turned her into an em battled, captive, abandoned w ife. S u san n ah s m other, in an unparalleled act o f strength, m anaged to arrange that the husband-to-be sign an agreem ent vouchsafing Su san n ah s earnings to Susannah. This agreem ent w as not honored fo r m any years— one attem pt on S u san n ah s part to get a theater m anager to pay her directly led to intense violence on her h u sban ds part— but later in life, Susannah w as able to use this agreem ent to protect her o w n earnings.

T o meet his ever-increasing financial needs, Theophilus forced Susannah to "entertain" an adm irer, William Sloper, a w ealthy, married man. But M r Sloper's adm iration for Cibber w as genuine; he w as not looking for a w hore. T h e tw o becam e deep friends and, with Theo's

encouragem ent,

perhaps

his

insistence,

the

friendship

developed into a sexual relationship. T he three lived at first together, T h eo delivering C ibber to Sloper's bedroom . Sloper paid T h e o s debts and bills, and T h eo rem ained tyrant, controller.

W hen

Cibber

and

Sloper tried

to escape

T h eo's

malicious

protectorate by offering him financial support fo rever in exchange for independence, T h eo, as sc m any men before and since, found p ow er over a w om an even m ore dear to him than m oney. He w reaked vengeance on the two: he prosecuted Sloper for seducing his

w ife, published a transcript o f the trial, and C ib b er w as m arked as an adultress and pariah fo r the rest o f h er life. T h eo 's vengean ce did not stop there: he kidnapped C ibber, prosecuted Sloper a second tim e.

A fraid o f a violent husband

w h o w a s determ ined

to reclaim

h e r— body and property, if not so u l— C ib b er w as forced to leave England to hide. She w a s also forced o u t o f h er profession.

A fte r th ree years o f isolation, helped especially b y Handel, C ib b er returned to the stage in Ireland, o u t o f the reach o f English law.

Eventually she returned to England, h er in tegrity and p o w e r as an actress d w a rfin g the malice o f h er cruel and pathetic husband. Sh e and Sloper lived to g eth er until she died. She bore th ree children, on e o f T h eo , tw o

w ith

Sloper. O n ly one (with Sloper) lived into

adulthood. O n e o f C ibber's triu m ph s w a s that this child, a d au gh ter, m ade a safe and happy m arriage and w as accepted back into society.

Like G e o rg e Eliot, nearly a hundred years later, C ib b e r w o rked , she w as m agnificent, she w a s fam ous, and she w a s shun ned. Unlike Eliot, she w a s exiled fo r the m ost part w ith in England, as if co ntact w ith the notoriou s adultress w ou ld con tam in ate those pu rer persons w h o are, a fter all, the v e ry essence o f virtue. Even h er closest colleague, D avid G arrick, th e actor w h o o w ed so m uch o f his ability to realize a ch aracter on stage to h er artistry and presence, w a s reluctant to visit h er w h ere she lived w ith Sloper.

In the English th eater at that tim e, it w as com m on practice for actors to m anage th eater com panies. Patents, difficult to obtain and expen sive, had to be b o u gh t fro m the g o v ern m en t, o r the com panies w e re outlaw s. C ib b e r w an ted to m an age a licensed com p an y w ith G arrick and a n o th er colleague. R ath er than share m an agem en t w ith a w o m an , and possibly w ith this w o m an in particular, G arrick cu n n in gly held C ib b er at bay, w h ile he m ade and execu ted o th er plans, w hich excluded her. T h e actress co ntinu ed to w o rk w ith him; th e w o m an forgave.

For the last several years o f h er life, C ib b er w a s in grea t pain fro m a stom ach ailm ent, perhaps ulcers or colitis. She d egen erated visibly o v e r a long period o f tim e. G a rrick continu ed to ascribe h er illness to "tem p eram en t, " even w h en she w a s near death. T h e evidence, as N ash m akes clear, is that C ib b er w o rked despite the debilitation of her illness. She stretched to the o u te r lim its o f her physical capacity.

W hen G arrick learned she w a s dead, he said, "th en half of T ra g e d y

is dead. " London's tw o major theaters, bitter rivals, both closed that night to honor and m ourn her. She is buried in an anteroom of W estm inster A bbey, not in the A bbey itself w ith Garrick and the oth er sublime figures o f British theater. W hen Sloper died, his legal family destroyed every rem nant of her existence. T o d a y s inhabitants o f the Cibber-Sloper house, w h o are conversant w ith the history of the restored eighteenth-century dwelling and the Sloper family, kn o w only that "old Sloper" had a m istress, som e actress.

We have G a rrick s legend, but Nash has given us som ething finer— C ib b e rs story. T o a profession that has consistently degraded w om en,

Cibber

brought

integrity.

N ow ,

w h en

actresses are

compelled to act out for us our m ost abject humiliations, C ib b e rs resurrection in this book rem inds us that one m ust not and need not give in.

Whose Press? Whose Freedom?

1983

The editor who published this essay invented the title. I didn't see it before it was published. I didn't anticipate it either. The title suggests that I am dealing with contemporary journalism and conjures up the pornography debate, intentionally I think. But this essay is about male power, misogyny, and literature. The two books reviewed here are intelligent, original books about how men use power to suppress women's deepest, most creative, and most significant speech. Both books should be read if they can be found. People have told me that I was terribly hard on these books.! didn't mean to be. They are about what is killing me— how women's writing is demeaned and how women are kept from publishing. M y intemperance and impatience are from pain and also from an acute, detailed knowledge of how this hatred of women's writing is both institutionalized and indulged. So I am not happy with what these books leave out and I keep saying that they have not said enough. But nothing is enough. So let me now thank these writers for these books. I learned from both of them.

How to Suppress Women's Writing by Joanna Russ (Austin, Texas: University of Texas, 1983)

Intruders on the Rights of Men by Lynne Spender (Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1983)

T

hese a re tw o

en ergetic and passionate books. Each analyzes and

describes som e part o f the politics o f su rvival fo r w o m en w riters.

N eith er co n veys th e sh eer a w fu ln ess o f the nigh tm are itself: the nigh tm are that exten d s o v e r the co u rse o f a life d ay in and day out; th e w e arin g a w a y o f body, mind, and heart fro m p o verty, invisibility, neglect, endem ic co n tem p t and hum iliation. T h a t is th e sto ry o f

w om en's w riting. W hen I w as younger, I read w riters' biographies fast and loved the bravery of enduring any hardship. N o w I kn ow that the years are slow, hard, and h u n g ry — there is despair and bitterness— and no volum e read in tw o hours can convey w hat survival itself w as or took. Th ese books both fail to sh o w w hat survival as a w om an w riter o f talent really costs, w h at the w riting itself costs: and so both shortchange the intense brilliance o f much of the w o m e n s w riting w e have.

Russ is a speedy, w itty w riter, full of fast perceptions and glistening facts. O n e can slip and slide all over her prose and it is fun: unless or until you start getting pissed off. Y ou w an t to kn o w m ore and deeper stu ff about the w riters she invokes, som ething about the textu re of their lives, m ore about the books th ey w rote, som e m ood and som e substance relating to the w riters or the w o rk that is considered and sustained in quality, som ething of the concrete w orld surrounding them. Perhaps it is a m atter o f taste, but m aybe it is not. O n e gets tired of hearing w om en w riters referred to but not kn ow n or conveyed. This is a political point.

N evertheless, Russ has some brilliant insights into h o w w om en's w riting is suppressed. She explicates the basic hypocrisy o f liberal dem ocracy w ith am azing accuracy: In a nominally egalitarian society the ideal situation (socially speaking) is one in which the members of the "wrong" groups have the freedom to engage in literature (or equally significant activities) and yet do not do so, thus proving that they can't. But,alas, give them the least real freedom and they will do it. The trick thus becomes to make the freedom as nominal a freedom as possible and then— since some of the so-and-so's will do it anyway— develop various strategies for ignoring, condemning, or belittling the artistic works that result. If properly done, these strategies result in a social situation in which the "wrong" people are (supposedly) free to commit literature, art, or whatever, but very few do, and those who do (it seems) do it badly, so we can all go home to lunch, (pp. 4-5) M any o f the w riters Russ refers to, h ow ever, did not live in a nom inally egalitarian society. T h ey lived, fo r instance, in England in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. T h ey lived difficult, often desperate lives, constrained, alm ost in dom estic captivity. T h e y w ere middle-class in their society's term s, which does not translate into anyth in g A m erikans on the face o f it understand. T h e y w ere poor;

th ey w ere poorly educated or self-educated; m ostly th ey died you n g; th ey had virtually no social existen ce outside the patronage of husbands or fathers. Russ invokes the m isogyn y su rrou nd ing their w o rk then, but ignores the w a y s in w hich their w o rk s continue to be m arginal now . T h is is a real loss. T h e m arginality o f w o rk s acknow ledged as "great books" is a fascinating political p h enom enon.

T h e u rgen cy o f g ettin g those books to the cen ter of cu ltu re has to be articulated by those w h o recogn ize the prodigal substance o f those books. A s Russ so rightly says, W uthering Heights is m isread as a rom ance— H eathcliff's sadism is, in fact, exem plary. Wuthering Heights brilliantly delineates the social con stru ction o f that sadism , its hierarchical deploym ent am ong m en to hu rt and control them and then the im pact o f that m ale hum iliation on w om en; it also provides a paradigm for racism in the raising o f the y o u n g H eathcliff. T h e book should be o f vital interest to political scientists and theorists as well as to aspiring w rite rs and all readers w h o w a n t abu n d an tly beautiful prose. Sim ilarly w ith Jane Eyre: the book should be, but is not, central to discourse on fem ale equality in e v e ry field o f th o u g h t and action. It w ould also be useful to understand h o w G e o rg e Eliot can be recognized as the suprem e geniu s o f the English novel and still be largely unread. (We do read T o lsto y, her on ly peer, in tran slation . ) R uss avoids Eliot, perhaps because the m agnitude o f her ach ievem en t su ggests that "great w rite r" is a real catego ry, small and exclusive, w ith real m eaning.

T h e strategies of suppression that R uss isolates travel nicely th ro u gh tim e. It is doubted that a w o m an really w ro te w h a te v e r it is (that is a dated strategy: the co n tem p o rary version is that the w rite r is not a real w o m an in the Cosmo sense, hot and free). It is acknow led ged th at a w o m an w ro te the book, but it is m aintained th at she should not h a v e — it m asculinizes her, m akes h er u nfit fo r a w o m a n s life, and so on. T h e con ten t is judged by the g en d er o f the auth or. T h e book is falsely categorized: it falls b etw e en g en res so it is m isread or dism issed; a m an connected to the w o m an publishes her w o rk under his nam e; the w o m an h erself is categorized in som e w a y that slanders h er talent or h er w o rk. O r, it is sim ply discounted, according to the principle: " W hat I don't understand doesn't exist. " O u r social invisibility, R uss w rites, "is not a 'failure o f hu m an co m m u n ication / It is a socially arranged bias persisted in long a fter the in form ation abo ut w o m e n s

experience is available (som etim es even publicly insisted upon). " (p.

48) Russ develops each of these ideas w ith sophistication and wit.

T h ere are tw o spectacular insights in her book. A bout Villette she writes: "If Villette is the fem inist classic I take it to be, that is not because o f any explicit fem inist declarations made by the book but because of the novel's constant, passionate insistence that things are like this and not like th a t. . . " (p. 105) She has articulated here that which distinguishes fem inist thinking and perception from the m ore corrupt and disingenuous male approaches to life and art.

She also discerns in the w hole idea of regionalism as a literary subspecies a strategic w a y o f trivializing and dism issing w om en. Willa C a th e r and K ate Chopin are regionalists (one m ight include Eudora W elty and Flannery O 'C o n n or) but Sh erw ood A nderson (!), Thom as W olfe, and William Faulkner are not. O f course, Faulkner is; and he is a great novelist too, in m y view . Regionalist is used to suggest a small, narrow w riter, a wom an; it is not used, even though accurate, to describe M r Faulkner.

1 have three serious argum ents w ith Russ's book. First, she claims that "(alt the high level of culture w ith which this book is concerned, active bigotry is probably fairly rare. It is also hardly ever necessary, since the social context is so far from neutral. " (p. 18) I think bigotry on the high level is active, purposeful, malicious, and as com m on and slim y as the bigotry in other social sew ers. T h e m isogynist spleen pollutes criticism and m akes life hell for a w om an w riter. T h e m isogynist spleen su ffuses the publishing industry— h o w w om en w riters are talked about and to, treated, paid, actually published, sexually harassed, persistently denigrated, and som etim es raped. I take the bigotry o f high culture to be active.

Second, Russ scrutinizes rightly the w rongheaded ness o f those w h o trivialize or dismiss books w ritten by the "w ro n g " people, but she seem s to think that all books by "w ro n g " people are created equal and I don't. She says w ith som e disbelief that som e w om en actually th ou ght D o roth y Sayers w as a m inor novelist until they read Gaudy Night. I read Gaudy Night, w hich I liked enorm ously, and still think Sayers is a m inor novelist. I think great books, as distinguished from all o th er books, do exist. It is true, as Russ eloquently insists, that m any o f them have been left out o f the literary canon because of racial, sexual, or class prejudice.

It is also tru e— which

Russ

ig n o res— that books by the "righ t" people are o ften overestim ated and their value inflated. I think this m atters, because I do think great books exist and they do m atter to m e as such. I think that w ritin g a great book, as opposed to any o th er kind, is a suprem e accom plish­ m ent; I think reading one is a g o rg e o u s and a w esom e experience.

Finally: I intensely disliked Russ's "A fte r w o rd , " in w h ich she presents a pastiche o f fragm en ts from the w ritin gs o f som e w o m en of color. D espite the apologia that precedes the "A fte r w o rd , " su ggestin g that it is b etter to do som ethin g badly than not at all, I experienced Russ's h om age to w o m en w rite rs o f color as dem ean ing and condescending (to m e as a reader as w ell as to them as w riters). Fine w rite rs are w o rth m ore. N eglect is not corrected unless the quality o f respect given to a w rite r and her w o rk is w h a t it should be. I think som e o f these w riters are fine and som e are not v e ry good; a fe w I don't k n o w ; som e w o n d erfu l w rite rs are om itted. T h is h odgep odge su ggests, am ong o th er things, that distinctions o f excellence do not m atter, w h ereas to me th ey do, and I am insulted as a w rite r on behalf o f the excellent w rite rs here w h o are treated in such a glib and trivializing w ay. I sim ply ab h or the lack o f seriou sness in this approach to these w riters.

Lyn ne Spender's book, Intruders on the Rights of M en, is about publishing: h o w m en keep w o m en o u t of literature alto geth er or allow us in on the m ost m arginal term s. "In literate societies, " she w rites, "th ere is a close association b etw e en the printed word and th e exercise o f power. " (ix) T h is is som ethin g A m erikan s h ave trouble understanding. O n e o f the a w fu l consequ ences o f free speech/First A m en d m en t fetishism is that political people, including fem inists, h ave en tirely fo rgo tten that access to media is not a dem ocratically distributed right, bu t rath er so m eth in g g o tten b y birth o r m on ey.

W ro n g sex, w ro n g race, w ro n g fam ily, and you h a ven 't g o t it.

Spender's political clarity on the relationship b etw e e n being able to m ake speech public, and p o w er in the m aterial sense o f th e w o rd , enables h e r to shed a lot o f light on the inability o f w o m en to ch an ge o u r status vis-a-vis speech in books. She tends to d efine equality in a sim ple-m inded

w ay:

equal

n u m bers

of

w om en

to

m en

and

participation on the sam e term s as m en. N e verth eless, she ch allen ges the so-called n eu trality o f cu ltu re as such; she u n d erstan d s th at th ere is a politics to illiteracy that matters; she n ever loses sigh t o f th e fact

that pow er allows or disallows speech, and that male pow er has m arginalized and stigm atized w o m e n s speech. She underestim ates h o w much fem ale silence male pow er affirm atively creates.

H er discussion of the pow er of the publishers is inadequate. It is conceptually the bare bones. She does not discern the wide latitude that individual men in publishing have for sexual abuse and economic exploitation of w om en on w him . She does not analyze the structure of pow er within the industry— the kinds of p ow er men have over w om en editors and h o w that affects which w om en w riters those w om en editors dare to publish. She does not discuss m oney: h o w it w orks, w h o gets it, h ow much, w hy. She does not recognize the impact of the hum ongous corporations n o w ow n in g publishing houses. She does not deal w ith publishing contracts, those adorable o ne-w ay agreem ents in which the author prom ises to deliver a book and the publisher does not promise to publish it. But: she does discuss, too briefly, sexual harassm ent in publishing— an unexposed but thriving part of the industry, because if w om en w riters, especially fem inists, will not expose it (for fear of starving), w h o will? T h e book is very interesting but much too superficial. It gives one som e ideas but not enough analysis o f h ow pow er really functions: its dynamics; the w a y it gets played out; the consequences of it creatively and econom ically for w om en w riters. Spender is an advocate of w om en's independent publishing, w hich is the only suggested solution; but she does

not

explore

the

difficulties

and

dangers— political

and

econom ic— of small, usually sectarian presses.

Both Intruders on the Rights of Men and How to Suppress Women's Writing are genuinely w orth reading, but they will not bring the reader closer to w h at it m eans for a w om an to w rite and publish; nor will either book get the w riter herself throu gh another day.

Preface to the Paperback Edition of Our Blood

O u r B lood is out of print again in both the United States and Britain.

O

u r B l o o d is

a b o o k that g rew out o f a situation. T h e situation

w as that I could not get m y w o r k published. So I too k to

public speaking— not the extem p oran eo u s exposition o f th o u g h ts or the o u tp o u rin g o f feelings, bu t crafted prose that w o u ld inform , persuade, disturb, cau se recognition, sanction rage. I told m yse lf th at if publishers w o u ld not publish m y w o rk , I w o u ld bypass them alto geth er. I decided to w rite directly to people and fo r m y o w n voice.

I started w ritin g this w a y because I had n o o th e r choice: I sa w n o o th er w a y to su rviv e as a w riter. I w a s convinced th at it w a s the publishing establish m en t— timid and p o w erless w o m e n editors, the su p e rstru ctu re o f m en w h o m ake the real decisions, m isogynistic re v ie w e rs— th at stood b etw e en m e and a public p articularly o f w o m en that I k n e w w a s there. T h e publishing establish m ent w a s a form idable blockade, and m y plan w a s to sw im arou n d it.

In April 19 74 m y first b o ok -len gth w o r k o f fem in ist th eo ry , Woman Hating, w a s published. B efore its publication I had had trouble. I had been o ffered m agazine assign m en ts that w e re d isgu stin g. I had been offered a g rea t deal o f m o n ey to w rite articles that an ed itor had already outlined to m e in detail. T h e y w e re to be about w o m e n o r sex or d ru gs. T h e y w e re stupid and full o f lies. For instance, I w a s o ffered $ 150 0

to

w rite

an

article

on

the

use

of

barbitu rates

and

am phetam ines by suburban wom en. I w as to say that this use of drugs constituted a hedonistic rebellion against the dull conventions of sterile housew ifery, that w om en used these drugs to turn on and sw ing and have a w onderful new life-style. I told the editor that I suspected w om en used am phetam ines to get through miserable days and barbiturates to get through miserable nights. I suggested, amiably I thought, that I ask the w om en w h o use the drugs w h y they use them. I w as told flat-out that the article would say w hat fun it was.

I turned dow n the assignm ent. This sounds like great rebellious fu n — telling establishm ent types to go fuck them selves w ith their fistful of dollars— but w hen one is very poor, as I w as, it is not fun. It is instead profoundly distressing. Six years later I finally made half that am ount for a m agazine piece, the highest I have ever been paid for an article. I had had m y chance to play ball and I had refused. I w as too naive to know that hack w riting is the only paying gam e in tow n. I believed in "literature, " "principles," "politics," and "the p ow er of fine w riting to change lives. " W hen I refused to do that article and others, I did so w ith considerable indignation. T h e indignation marked me as a wild w om an, a bitch, a reputation reinforced during editorial fights o ver the content of Woman Hating, a reputation that has haunted and hurt me: not hurt m y feelings, but hurt m y ability to m ake a living. I am in fact not a "lady, " not a "lady w riter, " not a "sw eet you n g thing. " W hat w om an is? M y ethics, m y polirics, and m y style m erged to make me an untouchable. Girls are supposed to be invitingly touchable, on the surface or just under.

I th o u g h t that the publication o f Woman Hating would establish me as a w riter of recognized talent and that then I would be able to publish serious w ork in ostensibly serious m agazines. I w as w rong.

The publication of Woman Hating, about which I w as jubilant, w as the beginning of a decline that continued until 198 1 w hen Pornography: Men Possessing Women was published. T h e publisher of Woman Hating did not like the book: I am considerably understating here. I w as not supposed to say, for exam ple, "W om en are raped." I w as supposed to say, "G reen-eyed w om en w ith one leg longer than the other, hair betw een the teeth, French poodles, and a taste for sauteed vegetables are raped occasionally on Fridays by persons. " It w as rough. I believed I had a right to say w hat I w anted. M y desires w ere not particularly whim sical: m y sources w ere history, facts, experience. I had been

b rou gh t up in an alm ost exclu sively male tradition of literature, and that tradition, w h a tev er its faults, did not teach coyn ess or fear: the w riters I adm ired w e re blunt and not particularly polite. I did not understand th at— even as a w r ite r — I w a s supposed to be delicate, fragile, intuitive, personal, introspective. I w anted to claim the public w orld of action, not the private w orld of feelings. M y am bition w as perceived as m egalom aniacal— in the w ro n g sphere, dem ented by prior definition. Y es, I w as naive. I had not learned m y proper place. I k n e w w h a t I w as rebelling against in life, but I did not k n o w that literature had the sam e so rry boundaries, the sam e absurd rules, the sam e cruel proscriptions. * It w a s ea sy en ou g h to deal w ith me: I w a s a bitch. A nd m y book w as sabotaged. T h e publisher sim ply refused to fill orders for it. Booksellers w an ted the book but could not g et it.

R eview ers ignored the book, consigned me to invisibility, p o verty, and failure. T h e first speech in O ur Blood ("Fem inism , A rt, and M y M o th er Sylvia") w a s w ritten before th e publication o f Woman Hating and reflects the deep optim ism I felt at that tim e. B y O cto b er, the tim e o f the second speech in O ur Blood ("R enouncing S e xu a l'E q u a lity'"), I k n e w that I w as in for a hard tim e, bu t I still did not k n o w h o w hard it w as goin g to be.

"R en o u n cin g Sexu al 'E qu ality'" w as w ritten fo r the N ational O rg an iza tio n fo r W om en C o n fere n ce on Sexu ality that took place in N e w Y o rk C ity on O cto b e r 12, 1974. I spoke at the end o f a threeh o u r speakout on sex: w o m en talking about their sexual experiences, feelings, values. T h e re w e re 110 0 w o m en in the audience; no m en w e re present. W hen I w a s done, the 110 0 w o m en rose to th eir feet.

W om en w e re cryin g and shakin g and sh ou tin g. T h e applause lasted nearly ten m inutes. It w a s one o f the m ost aston ishin g experiences of I had been w arned early on about w h at it m eant to be a girl, but I hadn't listened.

"You write like a m an, "an editor w rote me on reading a draft of a few early chapters of Woman Hating. "W hen you learn to w rite like a w om an, w e will consider publishing y o u . " T his adm onition reminded me of a guidance counselor in high school w h o asked me as graduation approached w h at I planned to be w h en I g rew up. A w riter, I said. He lowered his eyes, then looked at me soberly. He k n ew I w anted to g o to a superb college; he kn ew I w as ambitious. "W hat you have to do, " he said, "is g o to a state college— there is no reason for you to g o som ew here else— and becom e a teacher so that you 11 have som ething to fall back on w hen you r husband dies. " T his story is not apocryphal. It happened to me and to countless others. I had thought both the guidance counselor and the editor stupid, individually stupid. I w as w rong. T h e y w ere not individually stupid.

m y life. M any of the talks I gave received standing ovations, and this w as not the first, but I had never spoken to such a big audience, and w h at I said contradicted rather strongly much o f w h at had been said before I spoke. So the response w as am azing and it overw helm ed me.

T h e coverage of the speech also overw helm ed me. O n e N e w Y ork w eekly published tw o vilifications. O n e w as by a w om an w h o had at least been present. She suggested that m en m ight die from blue-balls if I w ere ever taken seriously. T h e oth er w as by a m an w h o had not been present; he had overheard w om en talking in the lobby. He w as "enraged. " He could not bear the possibility that "a w om an m ight consider masochistic her consent to the m eans o f m y release. " Th at w as the "danger D w orkin s ideology represents. " Well, yes; but both w riters viciously distorted w h at I had actually said. M an y w om en, including som e quite fam ous w riters, sent letters deploring the lack of fairness and honesty in the tw o articles. N one of those letters w ere published. Instead, letters from men w h o had not been present w ere published; one of them com pared m y speech to H itlers Final Solution.

I had used the w ords 'lim p" and "penis" one after the other: "limp penis. " Such usage outraged; it offended so deeply that it w arranted a com parison w ith an accomplished genocide. N othin g I had said about w om en w as m entioned, not even in passing. T h e speech w as about w om en. T he w eekly in question has since never published an article of m ine or review ed a book of mine or covered a speech of mine (even though som e of m y speeches w ere big events in N ew Y ork C ity). * T h e kind of fu ry in those tw o articles simply saturated the publishing establishm ent, and m y w o rk w as stonew alled. Audiences around the country, m ost of them w om en and m en, continued to rise to their feet; but the journals that one m ight expect to take note o f a political w riter like m yself, or a phenom enon like those speeches, refused to acknow ledge m y existence. T h ere w ere tw o n o tew o rth y if occasional exceptions: Ms. and M other Jones.

A fter Our Blood was published, I went to this same weekly to beg— yes, beg— for some attention to the book, which was dying. The male writer whose "release" had been threatened by "Renouncing Sexual 'Equality"'asked to meet me. He told m e , over and over, how very beautiful Our Blood was. "You kn o w — um— um," I said, "tha t— um, um — That Speech is in Our Blood— you know , the one you w rote about. " "So beautiful, " he said, ' so beautiful. " The editor-in-chief of the weekly w rote me that Our Blood was so fine, so moving. But Our Blood did not get any help, not even a mention, in those pages.

In the years follow in g the publication o f Woman Hating, it began to be regarded as a fem inist classic. T h e h o n o r in this will only be apparent to those w h o value M ary W ollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Women o r Elizabeth C a d y Stanton 's The W om ans B ible. If w as a great honor. Fem inists alone w e re responsible for the survival o f Woman Hating. Fem inists occupied the o ffices of Woman Hating's publisher to dem and that the book be published in paper. Phyllis C h e sle r contacted fem inist w riters o f reputation all o ver the co u n try to ask fo r w ritten statem ents o f support for the book. T h o se w rite rs responded

w ith

astonishing

gen erosity.

Fem inist

new sp apers

reported the suppression o f the book. Fem inists w h o w orked in bookstores scavenged d istributors' w a reh o u ses fo r copies o f th e book and w ro te o ver and o ver to the publisher to dem and the book.

W om en's studies program s began using it. W om en passed th e book from hand to hand, b o u gh t second and third and fo u rth copies to g ive friends w h e n e v e r they could find it. Even th ou gh the publisher o f Woman Hating had told m e it w a s "m ed iocre, " the p ressu re finally resulted in a paperback edition in 1976: 2500 lefto v e r unbound copies w e re bound in paper and distributed, sort of. Problem s w ith distribution continued, and bookstores, w h ich reported selling the book steadily w h en it w a s in stock, had to w ait m on th s fo r orders to be filled. Woman Hating is n o w in its fifth tin y paperback printing. T h e book is not an o th er piece o f lost w o m en 's literature on ly because fem inists w o u ld not g ive it up. In a w a y this sto ry is h earten in g, because it sh o w s w h a t activism can accom plish, even in the Y a h o o land o f A m erikan publishing.

But I had n o w h e re to go, no w a y to co n tin u e as a w riter. So I w e n t on th e road— to w o m en 's gro u p s w h o passed a hat fo r m e at the end of m y talk, to schools w h e re fem inist stu d ents fo u g h t to g et m e a hund red dollars or so, to co n feren ces w h e re w o m e n sold T -sh irts to pay me. I spent w e ek s o r m on ths w ritin g a talk. I took long, d rea ry bus rides to do w h a t appeared to be o n ly an even in g 's w o rk and slept w h e re v e r there w a s room . Being an insom niac, I did not sleep m uch.

W om en shared th eir h om es, th eir food, their h earts w ith m e, and I m et w o m en in e v e ry circum stan ce, nice w o m en and m ean w o m en , brave w o m en and terrified w o m en . A n d the w o m e n I m et had su ffered e v e ry crim e, e v e ry indignity: and I listened. "T h e Rape A tro city and the B oy N e xt D o o r" (in this volum e) a lw a y s elicited th e

same responses: I heard about rape after rape; w om en's lives passed before me, rape after rape; w om en w h o had been raped in hom es, in cars, on beaches, in alleys, in classroom s, by one man, by tw o men, by five men, by eight men, hit, drugged, knifed, torn, w om en w h o had been sleeping, w om en w h o had been w ith their children, w om en w h o had been out for a w alk or shopping or going to school or going hom e from

school or in their offices w orking or in factories or in

stockroom s, young w om en, girls, old w om en, thin w om en, fat w om en, housew ives, secretaries, hookers, teachers, students. I simply could not bear it. So I stopped giving the speech. I thought I would die from it. I learned w hat I had to know , and m ore than I could stand to know.

M y life on the road w as an exhausting m ixture of good and bad, the ridiculous and the sublime. O n e fairly typical example: I gave the last lecture in Our Blood ("The Root C a u se, " m y favorite) on m y tw en tyninth birthday. I had w ritten it as a birthday present to m yself. T h e lecture w as sponsored by a Boston-based political collective. T h ey w ere supposed to provide transportation and housing for m e and, because it w as m y birthday and I w anted m y fam ily w ith me, m y friend and our dog. I had offered to com e another time but they w anted me th en — en famille. O n e collective m em ber drove to N e w Y ork in the m ost horrible thunderstorm I have ev er seen to pick us up and drive us back to Boston. T h e oth er cars on the road w e re blurs of red light here and there. T h e driver w as exhausted, it w as impossible to see; and the driver did not like m y political view s. He kept asking me about various psychoanalytic theories, none o f w hich I had the good sense to appreciate. I kept trying to change the subject— he kept insisting that I tell him w h at I thou ght of so-and-so— ev e ry time Igot so cornered that I had to answ er, he slammed his foot d ow n on the gas pedal. I thought that w e would probably die from the d riv e rs fatigu e and fu ry and G od's rain. W e w ere an h o u r late, and the jampacked audience had waited. T h e acoustics in the room w e re superb, w hich enhanced not only m y o w n voice but the endless h ow lin g of m y dog, w h o finally bounded throu gh the audience to sit on stage during the question-and-answ er period. T h e audience w as fabulous: involved, serious, challenging. M an y of the ideas in the lecture w ere n ew and, because th ey directly confronted the political nature o f m ale sexuality, enraging. T h e w om an w ith w h o m w e w e re supposed to

stay and w h o w as responsible fo r o u r trip hom e w as so en raged that she ran out, n ever to return. W e w e re stranded, w ith o u t m on ey, not k n o w in g w h ere to turn. A person can be stranded and get by, even th ou gh she will be imperiled; tw o people w ith a G erm an shepherd and no m oney are in a m ess. Finally, a w om an w h o m I k n e w slightly took us all in and loaned us the m on ey to g et hom e. W orkin g (and it is dem anding, intense, difficult w o rk) and traveling in such en dlessly im provised circum stances require that one d evelop an affection fo r lo w com edy and gro ss m elodram a. I n ever did. Instead I becam e tired and dem oralized. A nd I g o t even poorer, because no one could ev er afford to pay me fo r the tim e it took to do the w ritin g.

I did not begin dem anding realistic fees, secure accom m odations, and safe travel in exch an ge fo r m y w o rk until a fter the publication of O ur Blood. I had tried in term itten tly and m ostly failed. B ut n o w I had to be paid and safe. I felt I had really en tered m iddle age. T h is presented n e w problem s fo r fem inist o rgan izers w h o had little access to the m aterial resources in their com m un ities. It also presented m e w ith n e w problem s. For a long tim e I g o t no w o rk at all, so I just g o t p oorer and poorer. It m ade no sense to a n yon e bu t me: if y o u h ave n oth in g, and som eone o ffe rs you som eth in g, h o w can you turn it d o w n ? B ut I did, because I k n e w that I w o u ld n ever m ake a living u nless I too k a stand. I had a fine and g ro w in g repu tation as a sp eaker and w riter; but still, th ere w a s no m on ey fo r m e. W h en I first began to ask fo r fees, I g o t a n g ry responses fro m w o m en : h o w could the a u th o r o f Woman Hating be such a scu m m y capitalist pig, o n e w o m an asked in a nearly obscene letter. T h e letter w rite r w a s g o in g to live on a farm and h ave n oth ing to do w ith rat-shit capitalists and b o u rgeo is fem inist creeps. W ell, I w r o te back, I didn't live o n a farm and didn't w a n t to. I b o u gh t food in a su p erm arket and paid rent to a landlord and I w an ted to w rite books. I a n sw ered all the a n g ry letters. I tried to explain the politics o f g ettin g the m on ey, especially from colleges and universities: the m o n ey w a s there; it w a s hard to get; w h y should it g o to Phyllis Sch lafly o r W illiam F. B uckley, Jr.? I had to live and I had to w rite. S u rely m y w ritin g m attered, it m attered to them o r w h y did th ey w a n t me: and did th e y w a n t m e to stop w ritin g ? I needed m o n ey to w rite. I had don e the rotten jobs and I w a s living in real, not rom antic,

p o verty.

I fou nd

th at

th e

e ffo r t

to explain

really

helped— not a lw ays, and resen tm e n ts still surfaced, bu t e n o u g h to

make me see that explaining even w ithout finally convincing w as w orth w hile. Even if I didn't get paid, som ebody else m ight. A fter a long fallow period I began to lecture again. I lectured erratically and never made enough to live on, even in w h at I think o f as stable poverty, even w hen m y fees w ere high. M any fem inist activists did fight for the m oney and som etim es got it. So I m anaged— friends loaned me m oney, som etim es anonym ous donations cam e in the mail, w om en handed me checks at lectures and refused to let me refuse them , fem inist w riters gave me gifts o f m oney and loaned me m oney, and w om en fought incredible and bitter battles w ith college adm inistrators and com m ittees and faculties to get m e hired and paid.

The w om en's m ovem ent kept me alive. I did not live well or safely or easily, but I did not stop w riting either. I rem ain extrem ely grateful to those w h o w en t the distance for me.

I

decided to publish the talks in Our Blood because I w as desperate

for m oney, the m agazines w ere still closed to me, and I w as living hand-to-m outh on the road. A book w as m y only chance.

T h e editor w h o decided to publish Our Blood did not particularly like m y politics, but she did like m y prose. I w as happy to be appreciated as a w riter. T h e com pany w as the only unionized publishing house in N ew Y ork and it also had an active w om en's group. T h e w om en em ployees w ere universally w onderful to m e— vitally interested in fem inism, m oved by m y w ork, conscious and kind. T h e y invited me to address the em ployees of the com pany on their biennial w om en's day, sho rtly before the publication of Our Blood. I discussed the system atic presum ption o f male ow nersh ip o f w om en's bodies and labor, the material reality of that ow nership, the econom ic degrading o f w om en's w ork. (The talk w as subsequently published in abridged form under the title "Phallic Imperialism" in Ms., D ecem ber 19 76 . ) Som e men in suits sat dourly through it, taking notes. Th at, needless to say, w as the end o f Our Blood. T h ere w as one o th er telling event: a highly placed departm ent head th rew the m anuscript o f O ur Blood at m y editor across a room . I did not recognize male tenderness, he said. I don't kn o w w h eth er he made the observation before or after he th rew the m anuscript.

Our Blood w as published in cloth in 1976. T h e only review o f it in a m ajor periodical w as in Ms. m any m on ths after the book w as out of bookstores. It w as a rave. O th erw ise, the book w as ignored: but

purposefully, m aliciously. G loria Steinem , Robin M organ , and K aren D e C r o w tried to review the book to no avail. I contacted nearly a hundred fem inist w riters, activists, editors. A large m ajority m ade countless effo rts to h ave the book review ed. Som e m anaged to publish

review s in fem inist publications, but even

th ose w h o

freq u en tly published elsew h ere w e re unable to place review s. N o one w as able to break the larger silence.

O ur Blood w as sent to virtually e v e ry paperback publisher in the United States, som etim es m ore than once, o v e r a period o f years.

N one w ou ld publish it. T h erefo re, it is w ith g rea t joy, and a sh a k y sense o f victory, that I w elcom e its publication in this edition. I h a v e a special love for this book. M ost fem inists I k n o w w h o h ave read O ur Blood h ave taken m e aside at one tim e o r a n o th er to tell m e th at th ey h ave a special affection and respect fo r it. T h e r e is, I believe, som ething quite beautiful and u nique about it. Perhaps that is because it w as w ritten for a hu m an voice. Perhaps it is because I had to figh t so hard to say w h a t is in it. Perhaps it is because O u r Blood has touched so m an y w o m e n s lives directly: it has been said o v e r and o ve r again to real w o m en and the experience of saying th e w o rd s has inform ed the w ritin g o f them . Woman Hating w a s w ritte n b y a y o u n g er w riter, one m ore reckless and m ore hopeful both. T h is book is m ore disciplined, m ore som ber, m ore rigorou s, and in som e w a y s m ore im passioned. I am happy that it w ill n o w reach a larger audience, and so rry that it took so long.

A nd rea D w o rk in N e w Y o rk C ity M arch 19 8 1

Nervous Interview 1978

In 1978 I wrote a whole bunch of short articles. I desperately needed money and wanted to be able to publish them for money. O f these articles, N ervous In terview is probably the most obscure in its concerns and certainly in its form and yet it was the only one that was published at all, not for money. Norman Mailer managed to publish lots of interviews with himself, none of which made much sense, all of which were taken seriously by literati of various stripes. So this is half parody of him and his chosen form and half parody of myself and my chosen movement.

S

he w as ed g y

A m bivalent would be too polite a word. She came

at one, then w ithdrew . It w asn 't a tease, it w asn't coy. H er

enem ies said Paranoid. She said, C om m onsense. In the age o f the Glass H ouse, everyone a stone th row er, C om m onsense. But the pressure had been m ounting. A ccount for yourself, explain. Ever since that fateful day w h en she had juxtaposed the tw o w ords, "Lim p Penis, " she had been forced to hide or explain. She didn't count those w h o w anted apologies. Being a prudent person, she had hidden. A n ex-friend had just w ritten her, in accusation, saying that she did not understand "the chem istry o f love. " N or, she w as willing to admit, the physics o r m athem atics (or even simple arithm etic) o f love. She only understood its laws, the stu ff of literature and sexual politics, not science. N ow , after nearly tw o years o f absence/exile she w as returnin g to N e w Y ork. Feeling like a sacrifice. W ondering w h en the priests w ould com e at her. D eterm ined to d efy the gods.

Q : It seem s strange that anyon e so aggressive in her w ritin g should

be so reclusive, so hostile to a public life.

A: I'm shy, th a ts all. A nd cold and aloof.

Q : A lot o f m en in this tow n think you re a killer.

A: I'm too shy to kill. I think th ey should be m ore afraid o f each oth er, less afraid o f me.

Q : W h y don't you give in terview s?

A: Because th ey're so false. So m eo n e asks a q u estio n — v e ry posed and form al, or ve ry fum blin g and sincere. T h en som eone tries to respond in kind. C u lt o f fam e and personality and all that. It's all w ro n g .

Q : So w h y this? W h y n ow ?

A: I couldn't sleep. V e r y edgy. N e rv o u s nigh tm ares about N e w Y o rk .

G o in g hom e. C esspool and paradise. Y o u see, I've lived m an y places. I keep leaving them . I keep return in g to N e w Y o rk but I can't stay put.

But that's w h a t I w a n t m ost. T o stay still. S o I'm restless and irritated.

Q : People are surprised w h en th ey m eet you. T h a t yo u 're nice.

A: I think that's strange. W h y shouldn't I be nice?

Q : It's not a quality that on e associates w ith radical fem inists.

A: W ell, see, right there, that's distortion. Radical fem inists are alw ays nice. P rovoked to the point o f m adness, but rem aining, at heart, nice.

Q : I could nam e you a lot o f fem inists w h o aren't nice. Y o u yo u rself h ave probably had figh ts w ith just about ev e ry o n e I could nam e. Isn't this a terrible hypocrisy on y o u r p art— and silly too— to say that radical fem inists are nice?

A: A t a distance or v e ry close, nice is true. A t a n y m idpoint, it seem s false. A lso, y o u see, w e love each other. It's a ve ry im personal love in m an y cases. B ut it is a fierce love. Y o u h ave to love w o m e n w h o are brave en ou gh to do thin gs so big in a w o rld w h e re w o m en are supposed to be so small.

Q : Isn't this just an o th er kind o f m yth building?

A : N o, I think it's a v e ry neutral description. W om en w h o figh t fierce battles, as all radical fem inists do, en co u n te r so m uch h ostility and

conflict in the regular transactions of w o rk and daily life that they becom e very complex, even if they started out simple. O n e m ust learn to protect oneself. This means, inevitably, that one exaggerates som e parts of one's personality, som e qualities. O r they becom e ex a g ­ gerated in the process of trying to su rvive and to continue to work. So w h en one sees that in another w om an, one loves her for it— even if one does not like the particular defenses she has worked out for herself. Th at doesn't mean that one w ants to be intim ate w ith her.

Just that one loves her for daring to be so ambitious. For daring to continue to associate herself w ith w om en as a fem inist, no m atter w hat the cost, no m atter w hat walls she has to build to keep on doing w hat's im portant to her.

Q: W hat alienates you m ost from oth er w om en?

A: Failures of courage or integrity. T h o se ever-present hum an failures. I'm in the midst of the mess, just like everyone else. I expect too m uch from w om en. I get bitterly disappointed w h en w om en are flawed in stupid ways. A s I m yself am. And then I resent w om en w h o are bitterly disappointed in me because I'm flawed. It's the old double standard,

new ly

cast.

I expect

nothing

from

m en— or, m ore

accurately, I rarely expect m uch— but I expect everyth ing from w om en I admire. W om en expect everyth in g from me. T h en w h en w e find that w e are just ourselves, no m atter w h at our aspirations or accom plishm ents, w e grieve, w e cry, w e m ourn, w e fight, and especially, w e blame, w e resent. O u r w ro n g expectations lead to these difficulties.

For me, w ro n g

expectations

make

me som etim es

alienated, som etim es isolated.

Q: People think you are very hostile to men.

A: I am.

Q : D oesn't that w o rry you?

A: From w h at you said, it w orries them .

Q : I m ean, any Freudian w ould have a field day w ith yo u r work . Penis en vy, penis hatred, penis obsession, som e m ight say.

A: M en are the source of that, in their literature, culture, behavior. I could never have invented it. W ho w as m ore penis obsessed than

Freud? Except m aybe Reich. But then, w h at a com petition th a t w ould be. C h o o se the m ost penis obsessed man in history. W hat is so rem arkable is that men in general, really w ith so few exceptions, a r e so penis obsessed. I m ean, if an yon e should be sure of se lf-w o rth in a penis-oriented society, it should be the one w h o has the penis. But one per individual doesn't seem to be en ough . I w o n d er h o w m an y penises per man w ou ld calm them d ow n . Listen, w e could start a w h o le n ew surgical field here.

Q : T h e W om en's M o v em en t seem s to be m ore conciliatory tow ard s m en than you are, especially these days. T h e re is a definite note of reconciliation, or at least not h u rling accusations. W h at do you think o f that?

A : I think that w o m en have to pretend to like m en to su rvive.

Fem inists rebelled, and stopped pretending. N o w

I w o rry that

fem inists are capitulating.

Q : Isn't th ere som eth in g quite pathological in alw ays looking at sex in male term s? S a y you describe m ale attitud es tow ard s sex accurately.

D o n 't you accept their term s w h en yo u analyze e v e ry th in g using th eir term s?

A: T h e ir term s are reality because th ey control reality. So w h a t term s should w e use to understand reality? All w e can do is face it or try to hide from it.

Q : A re th ere m en you adm ire?

A: Y es.

Q : W ho?

A: I'd rath er not say.

Q : T h e re are a lot o f ru m o rs about y o u r lesbianism . N o one quite seem s to k n o w w h a t you do w ith w h o m .

A: G ood.

Q : C a n y o u explain w h y you are so opposed to p o rn og rap h y?

A: I find it stran ge that it requires an explanation. T h e m en h ave m ade qu ite an industry o f pictures, m ovin g and still, that depict the

torture of w om en. I am a w om an. I don't like to see the virtual w orship of sadism against w om en because I am a w om an, and it s me.

It has happened to me. It's going to happen to me. I have to fight an industry that encourages men

to act out their aggression on

w o m en — their "fantasies, " as those aspirations are so euphem istically named. And I hate it that ev ery w h ere I turn, people seem to accept w ithout question this false notion of freedom . Freedom to do w hat to w hom ? Freedom to torture me? T hat's not freedom for me. I hate the rom anticization of brutality tow ards w om en w h erev er I find it, not just in pornography, but in artsy fartsy m ovies, in artsy fartsy books, by sexologists and philosophes. It doesn't m atter w h ere it is. I simply refuse to pretend that it doesn't have anythin g to do w ith me. And that leads to a terrible recognition: if pornography is part of male freedom , then that freedom is not reconcilable w ith m y freedom . If his freedom is to torture, then in those term s m y freedom m ust be to be tortured. That's insane.

Q: A lot o f w om en say they like it.

A: W om en have tw o choices: lie 6 r die. Feminists are trying to open the options up a bit.

Q: C an I ask you about your personal life?

A: No. Q : If the personal is political, as fem inists say, w h y aren't you m ore willing to talk about you r personal life?

A: Because a personal life can only be had in privacy. O n ce strangers intrude into it, it isn't personal anym ore. It takes on the quality of a public drama. People follow it as if they w ere w atching a play. Y o u are the product, they are the consum ers. Every single friendship and event takes on a quality o f display. Y ou have to think about the co n se­ quences not just of you r acts vis-a-vis other individuals but in term s o f media, millions of strange observers. I find it very ugly. I think that the press far exceeds its authentic right to k n o w in pursuing the private lives o f individuals, especially people like m yself, w h o are neither public em ployees nor perform ers. A nd if one has to be alw ays aw are o f public consequences of private acts, it's very hard to be either spontaneous or honest w ith o th er people.

Q : If you could sleep w ith an yon e in history, w h o w ould it be?

A: T h at's easy. G e o rg e Sand.

Q : She w as p retty involved w ith m en.

A: I w ould have saved her from all that.

Q : Is there any m an, I m ean, th ere m ust be at least one.

A: Well, ok, yes. U gh. Rim baud. D isaster. In the old tradition, G lo rio u s D isaster.

Q : T h a t seem s to give som e credence to the ru m o r that you are particularly involved w ith g a y m en.

A: It should give credence to the ru m o r that I am particularly involved w ith dead artists.

Q : R etu rn in g to N e w Y ork, do you h ave a n y special h opes o r d ream s?

A: Y eah. I w ish that Bella w e re K ing.

Loving Books: Male/Female/Feminist

After many years of barely being able to publish in magazines at all, the women at H ot W ire, a magazine about music, asked me to write something about my identity as a writer. Thematically, this follows up on some of what I wrote in N erv o u s In terview . With male writers, people want to know who they are.

With women, stereotypes are simply applied. The invitation from H o t W ire gave me an exceptionally short chance to say something myself about my own identity and development.

I

liv e a strange life, but often the stran gest thing about it is that I

still love books and have faith in them and g et courage from

them as I did w h en I w as youn g, hopeful, and innocent. T h e innocence w as particularly about w h at it takes to endure as a w rite r— simply to survive, if one is rigorous, unsentim ental, radical, extrem e, and tells the truth. T h e books I loved w h en I w as yo u n ger w e re by wild men: D ostoevsky, Rim baud, Allen G in sberg am ong the living, Baudelaire, W hitm an, the undecorous. I read Freud and D arw in as great visionaries, their w o rk culled from the fantastic, com plex imagination. M y o w n values as a w rite r w e re set back then; and w o rk by w om en (except for Gone with the Wind and the N ancy D re w books*) intruded m uch later. In eighth grade science class, m y best girlfriend and I (lovers too) w ere both w ritin g novels, as an

* Imagine my surprise when, accidentally and very recently, I discovered that the Nancy D rew books were written by a man under a female pseudonym.

antidote to the boredom o f learning by ro te— and these novels had w o m en as heroes w h o had great am bitions. T h e y w ere nam ed after Belle S tarr and Am elia Earhart: stran ge nam es, w om en w h o w e re not usual, not grounded, not boring.

I h ave never w anted to be less than a great w riter; and I h ave n ever been afraid o f failing, the reason being that I w ou ld rath er fail at that than succeed at an yth in g else. T his am bition is deeply rooted in male identification: and m any o f the characteristics that I value m ost in m yself as a person and as a w rite r are. W hen you n g, I n e ver th o u g h t about being hom osexual or bisexual or heterosexual: only about being like Rim baud. Artiste in the soon-to-be-dead m ode w a s m y sexual orien tation , m y gen d er identity, the m ost intense w a y of living: d yin g early the inevitable end o f doing ev ery th in g w ith absolute passion. I w as devoted to Sappho, h er existen ce obscuring the gen d er specificity o f m y tru e devotion. W hen I read books, I w a s the w riter, not the Lady. I w as incorrigible: no m atter w h a t happened to m e, no m atter w h a t price I paid fo r being in this w o m a n s body, for being used like a w om an , treated like a w o m an , I w a s the w rite r, not the

Lady.

Sexu al

annihilation,

not

esthetic

b u rn -ou t

w ith

a

m agnificent literature left behind, w a s the real dead-end fo r w o m en too dense to com prehend.

Fem inism provided a w a y fo r m e to understand m y o w n life: w h y being free w a s not just a m atter o f living w ith o u t self-im posed or social o r sexual limits. M y so-called freedom on m an y occasions nearly cost me m y life, but th ere w a s neither traged y nor rom ance in this: neith er D o sto ev sk y nor Rim baud had e v er ended up being sexually used and cleaning toilets.

Sexual Politics w a s about the w ritin g and sex I had adored; w ith big doses o f lesbianism too. I learned from this book w h a t th ey w e re doing to me: see, said M illett, h ere he does this and this and this to her. I w asn 't the w riter, a fter all. I w a s the her. I had plenty o f open w o u n d s on m y body, and I began to feel them hu rt. Had I been the user, n ot the used, m y sensitivity probably w ou ld h ave approxim ated H en ry M illers. T h is is not pleasant to face; so I don't. Som ed ay I m ust.

1 h ave learned trem en d o u sly fro m w o m en w rite rs as an adult; I h ave learned that great w ritin g from w o m en is g e n u in e ly — not rom antically— despised, and that the books are w ritten out of an open

vein; I have learned about w o m e n s lives. M y ambitions as a w riter still go back, too far, into m y obsessions w ith the men; but w hat I learned from them , I need every day of m y w riting life— I am not afraid of confrontation or risk, also not of arrogance or erro r— I am happy not to even be able to follow the rules o f polite discourse, because I learned to hate them so early— I love w h at is raw and eloquent in w riting but not feminine. I have learned to appreciate the great subtlety and strength o f w om en w h o w rite w ithin the boundaries of a fem inine w ritin g ethic: but I do not accept it for m yself.

W hat I affirm here is that w hile I did not learn w ritin g from w om en, I have learned virtually everyth in g im portant about w h at it m eans to be a w om an from w om en w riters: and I have also learned m uch about male pow er from them , once I cared enough about w om en as such to realize that male p o w er w as the them e m y o w n life had led me to. I know male pow er inside out, w ith know ledge of it gained by this female body. I dare to confront it in m y w ritin g because o f the audacity I learned from male w riters. I learned to confront it in life from living fem inists, w riters and activists both, w h o lived political

lives

not

bounded

by

either

female

frailty or

male

ruthlessness; instead animated by the lum inous self-respect and militant com passion I still hope to achieve.

Mourning Tennessee Williams ( 1911- 1983)

Amerika is hard on writers. The camera is always there to capture failure, decadence, decay. One must be famous or one is worthless. One must be public even though writers need privacy and considerable sheltering. Amerikan writers don't do too well or last too long. They live abroad or fall apart. Some male writers use gender as an aggressive weapon— Mailer, Updike, Bellow. Other male writers, rarer, use gender to explode conceits about identity or power or society or the status quo— Tennessee Williams or Gore Vidal or, in a younger generation, Tim O'Brien in G o in g A fte r C a ccia to . The male writers who do use gender in a subversive way endanger themselves. The macho boys want them dead. The literary establishment is on the side of the macho boys. Tennessee Williams wrote some true and subversive plays. Amerika didn't treat him very well and isn't sorry.

W

h en

i h e a r d that T en n essee W illiam s w a s dead, I fo u n d m yself

cryin g. T h e tears cam e alm ost before I could take m y n ext

breath. I w as ve ry sad, and in the en su in g d ays I could not shake m y sense o f loss and grief. I tried to th in k about w h y he m eant so m uch to me.

"H is w o m e n , " as those giants o f restlessness and turm oil are called in the popular press, sh o w alm ost too m uch o f o u r hidden lives. It is painful even to rem em b er th em because th eir insides w e re so exposed. He a lw ays sh o w ed that the circu m stan ces o f w o m e n s lives w e re unbearable, w hich I take to be true. It is alm ost as if he created w o m en ou t o f the v e ry air that sm o th e rs us, sh o w ed us b reath in g in

that stifling heat, then trying to get rid o f it— pushing it out or choking it up. "His w om en" sm other the w a y I rem em ber sm othering under the iron hand of m ore liberal but still w om an ly convention.

"His w om en" roam and w ander and rebel against the bars the w ay I did, or they w ant to, and so they are alone no m atter w h o or w hat they love, in exile from m ost o f w h at passes as a w o m a n s proper life.

T h e y hide better than I ever did, I suppose, perhaps because they are from an earlier time and had to. T h ey fit in on the surface until the w orld falls apart for them and they alw ays pay for w h at they have dared to w ant. T h e y are great extrem ists— in sufferin g, in passion, in desire, in ambition. T h e y kn o w no middle ground. T h e y are greedy and each in her o w n w a y is ruthless. Inevitably they fail, they are destroyed, they lose— because life inevitably ends in death and for w om en especially not much is possible.

For Williams, w om en w ere the hum an protagonists. W e em body the hum an condition in his plays. His m en— the sons, brothers, lovers, husbands— are not so different from us, even though they are m ore brutal. T h e father, the elder, the patriarch, w ounds them and to the degree they w ant love, they have no chance. Williams, I think, never imagined that men and w om en had different natures: only d ifferent

lives. In his static world, o u r com m on ground w as

restlessness, desire, pain, the m ovem ent tow ard love, never com ing near enough.

W riting, he said, "becam e m y place of retreat, m y cave, m y refuge.

From w hat? From being called a sissy by the neighborhood kids, and M iss N ancy by m y father, because I w ould rather read books in m y grandfather's large and classical library than play m arbles and baseball. . . a result of a severe childhood illness and of excessive attachm ent to the fem ale m em bers of m y fam ily, w h o had coaxed me back into life. " It is too cheap to say that W illiam s' fem ale characters had entirely to do w ith himself: his o w n displacem ent and sense of fem ale stigma. N o great artist, w hich he w as, w rites w ith ou t an alm ost merciless objectivity. W illiam s' o w n rom anticism and others' trivializing perceptions o f his hom osexuality obscure the trem endous objectivity of his work: his insides are there (not in any simple w ay) and so are o u r ow n . He w as destroyed m ostly by his o w n lucidity, not the d rugs or drink that made that lucidity endurable. H e th ou gh t of w ritin g as an escape from reality, but in an artist o f his m agnitude it

n ever is. W riting distils reality, so the burden o f it is h eavier and on th e artist alone. "So m etim es, " he w ro te, still about w ritin g, "th e heart dies deliberately, to avoid fu rth e r pain. " In an introduction to The Rose Tattoo, along w ith Summer and. Smoke m y favorite of his plays, W illiam s said that w e pity and love each o th e r m ore than w e perm it o u rselves to kn ow . I loved and pitied him m uch m ore than I k n ew , and so m ew h ere, in the g en ero sity o f his art, he loved and pitied m e back: th ro u gh A lm a and Blanche and Serafina Delle Rose; and th ro u gh C h a n ce and those o th er desperate and lonely boys too. I k n o w them all: I k n o w th eir fear, their heat, their evasion, their failure, inside w h ere no one sees.

I think his w o rk w ill be reassessed outside the im peratives o f com m ercial th eater and that the brilliance o f his form al in v en tio n — its increasingly surreal com plexity and daring long past w h a t is n o w considered his prim e— will be as im portant as his bold rom anticism .

But w h a t will alw ays be m ost im p ortan t— if a w orld th at does not have m uch regard fo r w o m en (or fo r fragile m en excessively attached to w om en ) can o n ly see it— is the rem arkable, unique w a y h e used g e n d e r— m ythically, h a u n tin gly — to get to the root o f w h a t is sim ply and absolutely hum an: fear o f love that takes up tim e w h ile death com es closer.

"I don't ask fo r y o u r pity, " says C h a n ce at the end o f Sweet Bird of Youth, "but just fo r y o u r u n d erstan d in g— not even th at— no. Just fo r y o u r recognition o f m e in you , and the en em y, tim e, in us all. " M a n y pitied W illiams the m an because he su ffered m an y d efeats. F ew u nd erstood him. B u t as an artist W illiam s created the "recogn ition of m e in you, and the en em y, tim e, in us all" w ith en d u rin g b eau ty and u rgen t pow er. I thin k he defeated "th e en em y, tim e. "

Wuthering Heights 1987

In 1 9 8 3 , 1 taught a class in literature in the Womens Studies Department at the University of Minnesota. I simply made a list of my favorite books and taught them. I hadn't read W u th erin g H eig h ts since high school. I was astonished by it. The reasons are in this essay.

"S

O

t r o n g e r th a n a

alone, "1 w ro te

man, sim pler than a child, h er nature stood C harlotte

Bronte

of

her

deceased

sister,

Emily. Wuthering Heights, her one novel, published under a male pseudonym before her death at thirty, also stands alone. T h ere is nothing like it— no novel of such astonishing originality and pow er and passion w ritten by anyone, let alone by a nin eteenth-century w om an w h o w as essentially a recluse. N oth in g can explain it: a w orldly, obsessed novel o f cru elty and love that surpasses, for instance, the best of D. H. L aw rence in both sensuality and range; an act o f passion as well as a w o rk o f intellectually rigorous art; a rom antic, em otionally haunting, physically graphic rendering of sadism as well as an analytical dissection of it; a lyric and at the sam e tim e tragic celebration of both love and violence. "It is m oorish, and wild, and kn o tty as a root of h eath , " w ro te C h arlo tte, w h o adm itted to being som ew hat repelled by the book. "N or w as it natural that it should be otherw ise; the author being herself a native and nursling of the m oo rs. "2 So w as C h arlotte, but she w ro te Jane Eyre, a novel of civilized pain and outspoken dignity. Both w om en had a deep under­ standing o f male dom inance, w hich does su ggest that, for w om en, the fam ily is Blake's fam ous grain of sand. Emily did take the fam ily as a paradigm for society, especially for the creation of sadism in men.

She show ed h o w sadism is created in men th ro u gh physical and psychological abuse and hum iliation by o th er m en; and sh e w ro te about fem ininity as a betrayal o f h o n o r and hum an w h olen ess. Sh e w as indifferent to sex-roles per se, the su rface behaviors o f m en and w om en. Instead, she exposed the underbelly o f dom inance: w h e re p o w er and pow erlessness intersect; h o w social hierarchies em p h asize difference, fetish izin g it, and repudiate sam eness; h o w m en learn hate as an ethic; h o w w o m en learn to vanquish personal in tegrity.

She anticipated co n tem p o rary sexual politics by m ore than a cen tu ry; and, frankly, I d on 't think th ere is a co n tem p o rary novelist, m an or w om an , w h o has dared to k n o w and say so m uch. T h e re is n oth in g to explain h er prescience or her prophecy or, fo r that m atter, h er radical political acum en; except to say that Em ily B ron te seem ed to share w ith h er m on ster creation, H eathcliff, a will that w ou ld n eith er bend n o r break. He used his will to create pain for th ose h e hated. Sh e used hers, no less ruthlessly one suspects, to live in a self-determ ined solitude, to w rite, and, finally, to die. S h o rtly a fte r h er broth er, Branw ell, dissolute and self-obsessed, su d denly died, Em ily g o t consum ption, and w asted a w a y w ith w h a t seem ed a prem editated fierceness and determ ination. O n the day o f h er death, she g o t up and dressed and gro o m ed h erself and sat on a sofa and sew ed . Sh e said a docto r could be called and soon she died. B ran w ell had died in Sep tem ber 1848; Em ily died in D ecem ber. "S h e sank rapidly, " w ro te C h a rlo tte. "Sh e m ade haste to leave us. Y et, w h ile physically she perished, m entally she g re w stro n ge r than w e had yet k n o w n h e r __ I h ave seen n othing like it; but, indeed, I h a ve n ever seen h er parallel in a n y th in g . "3 T h e love sto ry b etw e en C a th e rin e E arn sh aw and the o u tcast child, H eathcliff, has o n e point: th ey are the sam e, th ey h ave on e soul, one nature. Each k n o w s the o th er because each is the o th er. "'W h a te v e r o u r souls are m ade of, his and m ine are the sam e;...'" 4 says C ath erin e. Each k n o w s the o th er because each is the o th er. T h is is not altruistic, self-sacrificing love, C h ristian self-effacem en t and selfdenial; instead, it is g ree d y and hard and proud, the self not abnegated but doubled, m ade stron ger, w ilder, m ore intem p erate. T o g e th e r, th ey are h um an , a h u m an w h o le, the self tw ice over; apart, each is insanely, horribly alone, a self d isfigured fro m separation, m utilated.

T h e y are wild togeth er, roam in g the m oors as children outside the

bounds of polite society, vagabonds, lawless. T h ey sleep as children in the sam e cradled bed. T he social distinctions betw een them mean nothing to them , because to each o th er they are the world: the w hole w orld, m ental, em otional, material. This is a love based on sam eness, not difference. It is a love outside the conventions or convictions of gend er altogether. O n e m ight argue that the love betw een C atherin e and H eathcliff is a m etaphor for hom osexual love; one or the oth er would be fake-m ale or fake-fem ale. O r one m ight argue that they em body an androgynous ideal, a conflation of male and fem ale. Th ese argum ents w ould be w ro n g because gender m eans nothing in this love. G en der com es into play once they are separated. But before they are separated, they are com panions in a perfect and wild harm ony, a sam eness of physical and spiritual identity. A s adults, separated, in H eathcliff love turned to sadism, each still recognizes the fundam ental truth of their unitary being. C atherine, before she dies, says: "'M y love for H eathcliff resem bles the eternal rocks beneath: a source of little visible delight, but necessary.. . . I am Heathcliff! H e 's alw ays, alw ays in m y mind: not as a pleasure, any m ore than I am alw ays a pleasure to m yself, but as m y o w n being. '" 5 And a fter she is dead, H eathcliff, inconsolable, says: "'B e w ith

me a lw ay s— take any

fo rm — drive me mad! only do not leave me in this abyss, w h ere I cannot find you! O h , God! it is unutterable! I cannot live w ith ou t m y life! I cannot live w ith ou t m y soul! "'6 T h ey do not find them selves in each other; they are them selves, w hich m eans they are each other. This, says Bronte, is passionate love, real love, unalterable love— not the socialized conflicts and antagonism s of opposites but the deep sam eness of tw o roam ing, wild, restless souls; society conspires to destroy the sam eness. In d estroying the sam eness, society destroys the tw o people. H eathcliff becom es sadistic; C atherin e becom es a w ife, a shadow o f herself. Boy and girl, "the little souls w ere com forting each oth er w ith better th ou gh ts than I could have hit on: no person in the w orld ever pictured heaven so beautifully as th ey did, in their innocent ta lk :.. adolescents, "they both prom ised fair to g ro w up rude as s a v a g e s . . . it w as one of their chief am usem ents to run aw ay to the m oors in the m orning and rem ain there all day, and the after punishm ent g re w a m ere thing to laugh at.... they fo rgo t everyth in g the m inute they w e re together a g a i n ... "8; adults, H eathcliff w an ts C a th erin e to

h aun t him and she has already prom ised to — '"111 not lie th ere by m yself: th ey m ay bu ry m e tw elve feet deep and th ro w the church d o w n o ver m e, but I w o n 't rest till you are w ith me. I n ever will! '" 9 H eath d iff is the quintessential outsider, a foundling> dark, "a dirty, ragged, black-haired child, " a 'gy p sy brat, "10 referred to as it: "I w as frigh ten ed, and M rs E arn shaw w as ready to fling it out of doors. . . all that I could m ake o u t . . . w as a tale o f [M r Earnshaw's] seeing it starving, and houseless, and as good as dum b, in the streets of Liverpool, w h ere he picked it up and enquired for its o w n er.. . . and M r E arnshaw told me to w ash it, and g ive it clean th in gs, and let it sleep w ith the children. "11 Being dirty, dark, a g yp sy, black-haired, havin g a black h u m or, all are syn on ym s for a virtually racial exclusion, a lo w er statu s based on skin and color: this racism is the reason fo r H eathcliff's exile from the civilized fam ily. T h e dirt and darkness becom e his pride and his rebellion, also the hidden source o f his pain, the hidden trig ger o f hate. Still vulnerable and exposed as an adolescent, H eath cliff sees C a th y , as he calls her, being rom anced by the gen tlem an ly Edgar Linton and says:.. if I knocked him d o w n tw e n ty tim es, that w ou ld n 't m ake him less handsom e or m e m ore so. I w ish I had light hair and a fair skin, and w a s dressed and behaved as w ell, and had a chance o f being as rich as he will be! '" 12 Persecuted by C a th y 's older broth er, H indley, because he is dark and d irty and gyp sy-like and a foundling, regarded as a savage and treated savagely, H eathcliff's exile is a forced m arch from m on ey and m an ners and education and refined language and civilized m ating. C a th y , seduced into fem ininity, finds H eathcliff's attitude and expression '"black and c ro ss'"13; she lau gh s at him because he is d irty, and fo r h erself she takes on the m anners of a lad y— "pulling o ff h er glo ves, and displaying fin gers w o n d erfu lly w h iten ed w ith doin g n oth ing and stayin g in d oors. "14 H eathcliff tries to m aintain an intellectual equality w ith C a th y , but hard labor and dom estic eviction m ake that equality im possible: "H e stru ggled long to keep up an equality w ith C a th e rin e in h er studies, and

yielded

w ith

poignant

th ou gh

silent

regret..."15 Social

conditions create in him w h a t appears to be a prim itive ign orance. H e is forced o u t o f the h o u se into hard labor, treated like an anim al because he is presum ed to h ave an anim al natu re, savage and dark.

T h e social conditions create the nature. Education and lan gu age

becom e useless to him. He sinks into a rough, hostile silence, anim al­ like; and C a th y betrays him: "It would degrade me to marry Heathcliff now; so he shall never know how I love him; and that, not because he's handsome... but because he's more myself than I am. Whatever our souls are made of, his and mine are the same; and Linton's is as different as a moonbeam from lightning, or frost from fire."16 H eathcliff overhears her say that to m arry him would degrade her, and he runs aw ay, to return later, an adult, educated, rich, still dark, filled w ith hate and w anting revenge. She chooses w hite: fair, rich Edgar Linton. T h e great love is in sam eness, not difference. This true love is destroyed by the divisive im peratives o f a racist hierarchy that values w hite, fair, rich, and despises dark, poor. H eathcliff recognizes the brutal and irrevocable m eaning of this choice, but C a th y never does. She hides from

its m eaning in the artifices and moral

bankruptcy o f fem ininity. She says she will m arry Edgar so that she can use his m oney to help H eathcliff achieve equality through education and clothes and the o ther refinem ents m oney can buy. "'If I m ake any sense o f you r nonsense, m iss/" says Nelly, her servant and the main narrator of the story, "'it goes to convince me that you are ignorant of the duties you undertake in m arrying; or else that you are a wicked, unprincipled g irl/"17 N elly m eans that intercourse is a duty o f m arriage; and it is immoral to have sexual relations w ith one man w hile loving another. C a th y , probably ignorant of intercourse per se, is ready to sacrifice herself, her person, for H eathcliff. Because she is self-sacrificing, she n ever understands w h y H eathcliff considers him self abandoned and betrayed by her choice of the fair, the rich, o ver the dark, the poor. He understands the contem pt; and he also understands that in abandoning him, she is destroying herself, because th ey are one. '"W hy did you despise m e? " ' H eathcliff asks her w h en she is dying. "'W hy did you betray y o u r o w n heart, C a th y ? I have not one w ord of co m fo rt . Y ou d eserve this. Y ou have killed yourself.. . . Y ou loved m e— then w h at right had you to leave m e? " '18 Even before m arrying, C a th y had the passionate conviction, based on nothing she could understand, that she w as doing the w ro n g thing; an irrational an guish — "Here! and here!' replied C atherin e, striking one hand on her forehead, and the o th er on her breast: 'in

which place the soul lives. In m y soul and in m y heart, I'm convinced that I'm w ro n g ! " '19 In betraying H eathcliff, she betrays herself, h er o w n nature, her integrity;

this

betrayal

is

precisely co n gru en t

w ith

becom ing

fem inine, each tiny step tow ard w h ite, fair, rich, a step a w a y from self and honor. She slow ly becom es a creatu re o f social b eau ty and grace.

She repudiates the ruffian renegade, physically stron g and fearless, w h o roam ed the m oors: not H eathcliff; herself. She does kill herself: she destroys h er o w n integrity and authen ticity. T h e g o w n s, the gloves, the w h iten ed, useless, unused skin, are em blem s o f h er contem pt for honor, self-esteem . She becom es a social cipher; she is no lon ger a wild will in a stron g body, w h o le in h er o w n natu re and w h o le in love.

H eathcliff s sadism is not equal and opposite to C a th y 's fem ininity.

T h is is not a "M e T a rza n Y o u Jane" story. T h ere is no m ale-fem ale sym m etry in affliction, no simple exposition o f dom inance and subm ission m odeled on sex-role stereo typ es. C a th y 's fem in in ity is a slow , lazy, spoiled abandonm ent o f self, a failure o f h o n o r and faith.

H eathcliff's

sadism

has a d ifferen t

genesis: he is patriarchy's

scapegoat until he becom es its m ale p rototype. Wuthering Heights, perhaps uniquely, sh o w s an interlocking chain o f m en socialized to hate and to cause pain th ro u gh abusing p ow er. H eath cliff is but one o f m any m ale tyran ts in Wuthering Heights; but he alone has the selfconscious perspective o f one w h o has been pow erless and hum iliated because he is dark, dirty. Because his hum iliation is based on race, he cannot escape the pow erlessn ess o f childhood by g ro w in g into dom inance: w h ite, fair, rich. T h e pain he inflicts w h en he has p o w e r is n ever the accidental, careless dom inance of the privileged. His selfconsciousness, rooted in race, is necessarily political, fo resh a d o w in g The Wretched of the Earth, The Pedagogy of the O ppressed: '" T h e ty ra n t, '" he says, '"grin d s d o w n his slaves and th ey don't turn against him; th ey crush those beneath th e m / "20 He is the revo lu tio n a ry excep tion, consecrated to revenge; he cru sh es up, not d ow n . H e will d estro y those w h o h u rt him, o r those w h o are the d escend ents o f th ose w h o hu rt him: the fam ily, the class, the kind, the type, a n y o n e w h o se status is w h ite, fair, rich. '"I have no pity! '" he says. '"I h ave no pity!

T h e m ore the w o rm s w rith e, the m ore I yearn to cru sh out their entrails! It is a m oral teething; and I grind w ith g rea ter en erg y , in

proportion to the increase o f pain/"21 His sadism is proud and explicit, conjuring up no less a philosopher of cruelty than Sade: '"H ad I been born w h ere law s w ere less strict and tastes less dainty, I should treat m yself

to

a slow

vivisection o f those

tw o, as an ev e n in g s

am u sem en t/"22 T h e tw o he refers to are C a t h y 's daughter and his o w n son.

H eathcliff's persecution in childhood is distinct, a racist oppression.

But the locus o f male dom inance, of pow er abused, is, according to Bronte, in the com m onplace experience of being a m ale child, pow erless as all children are, hu rt and hum iliated by older boys or adult m en. Using narrative, Emily Bronte w ro te a psychological and physical profile o f the pow er dynam ics o f the English ruling class, gender male: h o w boys, treated sadistically, learn to take refuge in a num b, orthodox dom inance, insular, herm etically sealed against vulnerability and invasion. A m ore familiar exam ple m ight be the socializing rituals in elite English public schools: h o w ruling class boys are put throu gh sadistic hum iliation and physical abuse. A boy escapes this or oth er choreographed pow erlessness into socially secure and physically safe dom inance, and he never risks the possibility o f being vulnerable to such injury again. T h is training, occurring in w h a tever circum stances, destroys any possibility of em p athy w ith the pow erless or the socially w eak or w om en or the exiled or the colonialized or the ostracized because one's o w n body, having experienced the pain and hum iliation of being pow erless, is safe only in a com plete disavow al o f social vulnerability, of identification w ith the injured. D om inance m eans safety. O n e is taught, through em otional and physical torture, to sn u ff out em pathy.

T h e training to sadism begins in childhood. W e call it child abuse.

H eathcliff is hit, flogged, beaten, assaulted, insulted, sham ed, hum iliated, called a vagabond, m ade hom eless, despised as a social inferior, ridiculed. His protector, the elder M r Earnshaw , is benign, a gentlem an o f effortless dom inance, p o w er in the form of u n 足 challenged patriarchal authority and m anners. But he does not give H eathcliff a patriarchal cover, the necessary protection, the nam e o f a father. T h e outcast is H eathcliff H eathcliff, a patriarchal no one w ith no rights because he has no last nam e, no fa th e rs lineage or passedon authority. H aving no nam e m eans having no earnest protection;

and so even w hile M r E arn shaw is still alive, H eathcliff is physically abused by H indley, the legitim ate son, and by the servan ts, as the w ife of the patriarch and m oth er of his real children says nothing, silently sanctioning the physical abuse. W hen M r E arn sh aw dies, H eathcliff H eathcliff is not only a n o n en tity in patriarchy, a nam eless boy; he is a dark, dirty pariah, hated w ith racist malice by H indley, w h o se patriarchal legitim acy gives him real p o w er as the head-of-th e-fam ily.

W ith

H indley

system atic,

no

the

boss,

lon ger

H ea th cliffs

random

or

bad

covert.

treatm en t T h is

becom es

physical

and

psychological abuse is not o n ly his individual affliction o r curse; it d efines his social and civil status. H ea th cliffs adult sadism begins in th e m echanism s he develops to su rviv e this cruel childhood: th e v e ry capacity to en dure m istreatm ent, to w ait, to w atch , to hate; the resolve to be aven ged , an essential d efen se against pain. " I ' m tryin g to settle h o w I shall pay H indley b a ck /" says the y o u n g H eathcliff. "'I don 't care h o w long I w ait, if I can on ly do it at last. I h ope he will not die before I do! '" 23 H eathcliff learns to take positive delight, to experience real pleasure, in w atch in g "H in dley d egradin g h im self past redem ption;. . 24 T h is w atch in g and w aitin g reinforces a stron g stoicism: He seemed a sullen, patient child; hardened, perhaps, to ill-treatment: he would stand Hindley's blows without a wink or shedding a tear, and my pinches moved him only to draw in a breath and open his eyes, as if he had hurt himself by accident and nobody was to blame.25 T h e ve n g efu l sadism o f the adult had in it the m ore horrible patience o f the abused child. B ron te sh o w s the ineluctable logic o f w h a t has b ecom e a co n tem p o rary sociological cliche: child abu sers h a ve o ften been abused as children. She sh o w s h o w the tree g ro w s from the acorn. W e m igh t have short-circuited a cen tu ry o f pain had w e bothered to learn from her. (The B ron tes are iconized but w h a t th ey k n o w about life is ignored; w h y ? T h e qu estion is one o f sexual politics; the a n sw e r is nasty bu t inescapable. ) H eath cliff su rviv es because he learns the will to rev en g e and because he tu rn s his d esperation fo r both love and respect into an a ffirm a tive pleasure in cau sing pain. He causes pain to those w h o stand in for the adults w h o h u rt him w h en he w as a child. T o en d u re as a child, he w a its o u t cru elty, inevitably learning that sam e cru elty as an ethic and as a

substitute for love. A s an adult, he acquires the social righ t— the p o w er— to be cruel: m oney, property, m anners, dress, the language and education to pass as one w h o has som e right to dom inance, though he is still perceived as dark, now called m orose, not dirty. His distinctive rebellion w as to becom e an oppressor of purposeful, canny, and merciless cruelty: not a slovenly perpetrator of random violence w h o hurts those in his im m ediate reach; not a dow n-and-out drunk w hose circle of violence is limited to his o w n outcast status.

H eathcliff's sadism is an energetic upw ard mobility, but to a political purpose: the radical repudiation of, the violent subversion of, the class system that hu rt him. He m akes no com m on bond w ith others hurt in their pow erlessness as children; he has no em pathy. Instead, the pariah status of race is the ground he stands on. He could never have the grace of effortless dom inance, inherited grace, w hite grace, patri­ archal elan; nor did he w an t it. He w anted nouveau pow er, the vulgar display o f sadistic revenge. H aving been an outcast, he k n ew h o w to manipulate the rich, the fair, the w hite; he kn ew m ore about them than they would ev er k n o w about them selves (learned through the waiting, the w atching, the enduring). He understood p o w er from the outside, as the pow erfu l never can, never have. He kn ew the vulnerability o f those w h o had hu rt him; he kn ew w h ere they w ere w eak or stupid or ignorant or d egenerate or greedy or arrogant. He used their flaw s o f character against them , a kind o f insurgent ju­ jitsu, in the hands of a m aster-survivor of despair and pow erlessness a dangerous weapon, one alw ays underestim ated by the ruling class.

He kn o w s the points of pain and never misses. He causes pain in such a w a y that those he hurts becom e cruel against oth ers according to his purposes and plan; he m akes them his accomplices in inflicting pain on others and in degrading them selves. He appreciates both em otional and physical su fferin g, and causes both kinds. In this parable of race oppression, H eathcliff turns on and crush es the class that oppressed him: d estroying in him self finally and forever anyth in g fragile or sensitive that m ight have survived his o w n training in pain. T h e sadist as revolution ary can accomplish only reven ge, turning-the-tables, a new social order of terror and pain that mimics the old social order o f terror and pain. T h e sadist cannot accom plish transform ation or change tow ard justice o r equality. He and the ruling class have too m uch in com m on: each is rem orseless;

each is incapable of em path y. H eathcliff has learned p ow er's main lesson to its ow n: feel no em pathy. T his is a parable o f the revolution failed, an o th er coup d'etat just like the last one; the T e rro r ram pant in one op pressed-turned-oppressor's heart.

H indley m arries w h en H eathcliff is a child; the w ife dies in childbirth.

H indley becom es d egenerate. He "neith er w e p t nor

prayed; he cursed and defied; execrated G od and m an, and gav e him self up to reckless dissipation. T h e servan ts could not bear his tyrannical and evil conduct long:..."26 T h is w a s the degradation H eathcliff took pleasure in w atchin g. H indley's son, H areton , w a s an o th er neglected and even tu ally abused son in this saga o f m ale socialization to brutality. H indley w as a violent drunk. N elly, the servan t, tries to hide the child from H indley, alw ays in d an ger from his

father's

em otional

and

physical

excesses.

The

child

"w a s

im pressed w ith a w h o leso m e terro r o f en cou n te rin g eith er his [Hindley's] wild beast's fond ness or his m adm an's rage; fo r in one he ran a chance o f being squeezed and kissed to death, and in the o th e r of being flu ng into the fire, or dashed against the wall; and the poor thing rem ained perfectly quiet w h e re v e r I ch o se to pu t h im . "27 H e w ou ld be secreted a w a y in a cupboard o r cabinet o r closet to protect him from his father. O n on e occasion, H indley takes the child up to th e top o f a staircase and holds him upside d ow n; distracted by noise, he drops him on his head. H indley is violent and dissolute; H areton is a neglected and abused child; H eath cliff as an adult m oves back in, m anaging slo w ly to b u y up H indley's p ro p erty by en co u ra gin g his dissipation. H eath cliff befrien ds the abused child, bu t does n o th in g to help him , on ly en cou rages the self-d estru ction, w ith its atten d an t violence, o f the father. A sked w h y he likes H eathcliff, H areton says: .. he pays dad back w h a t he gies to m e— he cu rses daddy fo r cu rsing me. He says I m un do as I w ill. '" 28 H eath cliff cu ltivates the a ffectio n o f the abused child, m ea n w h ile keep in g him u ned u cated and neglected. H eathcliff en cou rages the child's hatred fo r his o w n fath er.

H areton 's loyalty to H eath cliff is the d esperate loyalty an abused anim al gives an y o n e w h o is kind to it. W h en H indley dies, H eath cliff m an ages to take o ver W u th erin g H eigh ts and th e o rph an , H areton .

V en g ea n ce on H areton is part o f H eath cliff's plan, a p u rp osefu l violation o f the inn ocent, in the com m onp lace tradition o f cru e lty from older m an to y o u n g e r boy and also as a consciou s act o f class

retaliation. H areton, by birth superior, rich, fair, w hite, will be raised

by H eathcliff as a savage, raised like an animal, raised as H eathcliff w as raised. "'N o w , m y bonny lad/" says H eathcliff w hen Hindley has died, " y o u are mine! A nd w e ll see if one tree w on't g ro w as crooked as another, with the same wind to tw ist it!"'29 H areton is already m arked by the physical child abuse; H eathcliff need not physically torture him. W hat terror and pain can do has been done to the child.

But he will hu rt the child as he w as hurt, treat him w ith the same neglect and contem pt, keep him primitive, outcast, a rude, rough animal. H areton becom es w h at he is tau gh t to be. He has no m eans of expressing him self, no language, no gestures, adequate to his genuinely kinder sensibility. T h e happy ending o f Wuthering Heights, such as it is, w hen H areton begins to learn to read and w rite from C a th y 's daughter, C atherine, and th ey find in each oth er an equality of intellectual curiosity and em otional gentleness, provides in affirm ative form the great moral the book has been teaching all along: w e becom e w hat w e are taught to be; education is the one civilizing principle, leveling all distinctions o f class and status. T h e narrator of Wuthering Heights, Nelly, a servant, is also an equal in learning and discourse; and Wuthering Heights is an anguished indictm ent o f bad education— education, like love, based on difference, not sam eness, education that creates distinctions instead of creating a com m un ity of shared values and pleasures. T h e physical abuse is recognized as a form o f bad education; the neglect also educates. T h ese create the sadist and the savage. Language, books, com m unication, affection, in­ clusion on a basis o f equality of all persons, is the education that is lifeaffirm ing, transform ing, hum ane. T h e love based on sam eness reaches fulfilm ent in a com m un ity that practices education based on sam eness: a sam eness o f rights and dignity and access to intellectual achievem ent and simple self-respect. C lass differences are created th ro u gh h o w children are educated; so are sadism, tyrann y, and, potentially, equality.

T h e neglect o f children in infancy w as particularly com m onplace.

Childbirth often caused the death o f the m other. C a th y dies in childbirth and so does H areton's m other. T h e infant no doubt bore som e stigm a as the instrum ent o f the w ife's death, especially if she w e re cherished. C atherin e, the d au gh ter o f H eathcliff's love, C a th y , and the gentlem an, fair, rich, w h ite Edgar Linton, w as born "a puny

seven m on th s7child"; her m oth er died tw o h ours later, and the infant "m ight have wailed out o f life, and nobody cared a m orsel, d urin g those first h ours o f its existence"; the infan t w as "frien d less. "30 She too becom es part o f H eathcliff's reven ge. He d eterm ines that she will m arry his son, nam ed Linton by his ru n a w a y w ife , Isabella, Edgar L in to n s sister, because Isabella k n e w h o w m uch H eath cliff hated the Linton nam e and the Linton heritage. T h e son w as conceived in the carnal brutality of a sadistic m arital relation that included physical abuse and em otional torture. H eathcliff's plan w as to o w n H indley's p rop erty, W u th erin g H eights, and Edgar Linton's prop erty, and to d estroy the heirs o f both. T o accom plish this, he forced a m arriage betw een his son, Linton, w h o w a s close to death, and C a th e rin e, w h o se fath er w as close to death.

C ath erin e w a s a child o f h er tim e— she had h e r o w n burden o f neglect and loneliness to bear. M oth erless, raised m ostly alone, but treated after neglect as an infan t w ith love and respect, she g ro w s up provincial and protected, isolated, not w o rld ly, so m ew h a t spoiled but decent and essentially kind. Sh e is not brutalized as a child. M o stly , she is lonely. T h is loneliness and an ignorance o f m alice prepare h e r to love h er cousin, Linton, first as a child, then as a y o u n g adult.

W hen H eathcliff's ru n a w a y w ife dies, he takes back their son.

Isabella has tried to keep Linton a w a y fro m H eathcliff. S h e send s him to his uncle, Edgar Linton. C a th e rin e is en chan ted to h ave a cousin.

She thinks o f him w ith childish innocence as a friend, playm ate, com panion, broth er, tw in. W hen H eath cliff m an ages to g e t physical cu sto d y o f the child, C a th e rin e has taken fro m h er this longed fo r friend. M eetin g Linton as an adult, b y accident, o n the m oors, she already has a g rea t tenderness in h er h eart fo r him . H er fa th e r forbids h er to see Linton. T h is she cann ot und erstan d . H e is tryin g to keep h er from the harm H eathcliff can do her. She is m oved b y L in to n s apparent su fferin g and his apparen t sensitivity. H e is ill and w eak .

She is stirred to em p a th y in h er first adm iration, then to pity as sh e sees his w eak n esses o f character. She takes th ese feelin gs fo r love.

Linton is physically w eak, chron ically ill, probably co n su m p tive, slo w ly dyin g. Because Linton is d yin g and H eath cliff w a n ts C a th e rin e to m arry him b efo re he dies, H eath cliff kidnaps C a th e rin e and fo rces the m arriage.

Linton is a tyra n t o f self-in d u lgen ce and passivity. His sadism is no

m ore palatable than his father's, though his character is effete. This is no small part o f the brilliance of Wuthering Heights. T h e men are different personalities, and the tyrann y of each expands beyond the individual personality to fill the provocative im peratives o f male dom inance. T he sadism or brutality of each is exercised by each according to his need and according to his means. T h e need is created by the cruelty of m an-to-boy. H eathcliff, with the o u tca sts lucidity, describes his so n s character to Catherine: .. L in to n re q u ire s his w h o le sto ck o f care and k in d n e ss fo r h im self.

L in to n can p lay th e little ty r a n t w e ll. H e ll u n d e r ta k e to to rtu re a n y n u m b e r o f cats, if th e ir te e th be d r a w n an d th eir c la w s p ared. Y o u 'll be able to tell his u n cle fin e tales o f his kindness, w h e n y o u g e t h o m e again , I a ssu re y o u . "31

(Heathcliff's sadism includes keeping C atherin e in captivity to force this m arriage while her fath er is d yin g. ) Linton's sadism com es out of his w eakness. It is terror of his father that m otivates him: "Linton had sunk prostrate again in another paroxysm of helpless fear, caused by his father's glance tow ards him, I suppose: there w as nothing else to produce such hum iliation. "32 This sadism from fear, the sadism of the w eak, is the cow ardly relief that com es w hen his father's cruelty is turned on som eone else, not him, a classic defensive posture of the w eak. H eathcliff him self physically abuses Catherine, and Linton's vicarious pleasure in the abuse is am bivalent but real: " A n d w e r e y o u p leased to h a v e h e r s t r u c k ? ". . .

"I w in k e d , " h e a n s w e re d : "I w in k to se e m y fa th e r strik e a d o g o r a h o rs e , h e d o e s it so h ard . Y e t I w a s gla d at f ir s t — sh e d e s e r v e d p u n is h in g fo r p u sh in g m e: b u t w h e n papa w a s g o n e , sh e m a d e m e c o m e to th e w in d o w an d sh o w e d m e h e r c h e e k c u t o n th e in sid e, a g a in st h e r te e th , an d h e r m o u th fillin g w ith blo od. . . and sh e h a s n e v e r sp o k e n to m e since: an d I s o m e tim e s th in k sh e c a n 't sp e a k fo r th e pain. I d o n 't like to th in k so; bu t sh e 's a n a u g h ty th in g fo r c r y in g c o n tin u a lly ; a n d sh e lo o k s so pale and w ild , I'm a fra id o f h e r . "33

H eathcliff has pushed the dying Linton to rom ance C atherin e, to en gage her, entice her, enlist her sym pathy; in doing this, he pushes Linton to his death: "I could not picture a fath er treating a dying child as tyrannically and w ickedly as I afterw ard s learned H eathcliff had

treated him , " says N elly,.. [Heathcliff's] effo rts redoubling the m ore im m inently his avaricious and u nfeelin g plans w e re threatened w ith defeat by d eath . "34 A fraid that Linton will die before C a th e rin e can be seduced to m arry him , H eath cliff uses physical force against her to com pel the m arriage. But he has destroyed his son. In d estroyin g his son, he brings ou t L inton's ev e ry despicable quality.

T h is is the full depth o f H eathcliff's cruelty: the actual destruction of his son but also his m oral deconstruction, the unravellin g o f an yth in g kind or decent in him so that he will be m orally degraded and cruel to the fullness o f his capacity. He en joys not only Linton's su fferin g but th e su fferin g that Linton will cause C ath erin e: "'It is not I w h o will m ake him hatefu l to y o u , '" H eath cliff tells h e r , '" — it is his o w n sw ee t spirit. He's as bitter as g a ll. . . I heard him d ra w a pleasant p ic tu r e . . . o f w h at he w ou ld do [to you] if he w e re as stron g as I: the inclination is there, and his v e ry w eakn ess will sharpen his w its to find a su bstitu te fo r stre n g th /"35 T h e graphic picture o f a m an d riving his son t o death, k n o w in g the son will en du re his o w n pain by causing pain to som eon e else— planning the pain and th e pain that the pain will ca u se— m akes one ask as Isabella, H eathcliff's w ife, did: "Is M r H eath cliff a m an? If so, is he m ad? A nd if not, is he a devil?. . . I beseech you to explain, if you can, w h a t I h a ve m arried..."36 H eathcliff is the w o rst m an, d ifferen t in d egree, not in kind, from the o th e r m en w h o abu se w o m en and children; B ron te em ph asizes th e abuse o f boy

children

because she is w ritin g about

the

co nstru ction o f m ale dom inance. H eathcliff is w rit bigger: cru elty is his geniu s, his ethic; hatred, the radical em o tio n that fu els his onem an revolution against the rich, the fair, the w h ite, ev en w h e n , th ey are his o w n p rogen y. H e d estroys e v e ry o n e precisely because his dom inance cannot be passed on; that is the m eaning o f bein g an outcast, dark, gypsy-like; h e cann ot pass on w h a t he is w ith o u t passing on his degraded status. His radical cru elty, based on class hate, rem inds one, h o w e v e r u n w illin gly, o f the m ore attractive virtu es o f those born to dom inance: an ind ifferen t o r ev en g racious or affable condescension; a secu rity in p o w er and identity that can m od erate or sublim ate exercises in social sadism . H eathcliff's is a radical, violent revolution incarnated in a socially co n stru cted sadism th at appears to h ave the force o f nature: it levels e v e ry th in g before it. B ron te's fem inist g en iu s w a s to sh o w h o w this sadism w a s m ade; h o w and

w h y. H er political wisdom , a grounding in a profound though not effortless hum anism , led her ultim ately to disavow radical violence, though her creature, H eathcliff, w as so m esm erizing, so grossly misread as a rom antic figure, that the a u th o rs repudiation of H eath cliffs cruelty and violence has been overlooked or taken as insincere. A fter all, don't w om en w rite rom ances and fantasize physically brutal heroes? H ow could she have created him w ith ou t loving him ? — a question asked only o f a w om an author, w h o is presum ed to be m otivated by infatuation, not knowledge; ersatz romanticism, not analytical insight scalpel-like in exposing the viscera of social oppression.

In the narrative

itself,

Bronte

w arned

against

m isreading

Heathcliff. Isabella, his wife, stands in for the bad reader— a brilliant, ironic political point in itself. T h e bad reader is the sentim ental reader o f rom ance novels w hen life, love, and art dem and a confrontation w ith the politics of power. T he bad reader rom anticizes the sadist and reads the rapist, the abuser, the violent man, as a rom antic hero: tortured himself, despite proof that he is the torturer. H eathcliff describes this bad reader w hen he describes Isabella: 'S h e a b a n d o n ed [her fa m ily an d frien d s] u n d e r a d e lu sio n . . . p ic tu rin g in m e a h e r o o f ro m a n ce , and e x p e c tin g u n lim ite d in d u lg e n c e s fr o m m y c h iv a lr o u s d e v o tio n . I can h a rd ly re g a rd h e r in th e lig h t o f a ratio n al c re a tu re , so o b s tin a te ly h a s sh e p e rsiste d in fo r m in g a fa b u lo u s n o tio n o f m y c h a ra c te r an d a ctin g o n th e false im p ressio n sh e c h e r is h e d / 37

She is in the m ost ordinary relationship w ith this man: an ingenue in love w ith an outsider, a m ysterious m an w h o is dark and brooding, hurt, sensual; she m arries him and it is banal to say that m en brutalize their wives. Isabella is ordinary, the w a y m ost o f us are: taught to be bad readers of men, kept ignorant of the m eaning of dom inance and sex, in rebellion against the conventional w isdom — the co n ven ­ tions— of the family; the dangerous man is the route for those w h o m ust mix ignorance w ith rebellion.

H eath cliffs contem pt for Isabella has in it, again, a stunning lucidity, this time a moral lucidity. She has seen his sadism-«-she has seen him torture her dog, she has let him do it; ///. .. no brutality disgusted h er/" says H eathcliff,.. if only her precious person w ere secure from

injury! '" 38 It is this basic im m orality o f fem inine

lo v e— being the exception to the violence— no conscience to stop the brutality

against

o thers

just

so one

is exem pt from

it— that

underlines the m eaning of fem ininity: there is no integrity, no w h oleness, no honor. T h e tortu re of the dog is described tw ice, once

by N elly w h o sees it hanging, alm ost dead, and releases it just in tim e to save its life; and once by H eathcliff, w h o describes the little dog s vulnerability, Isabellas pleading for it and then doing nothing to save it, because she inferred that H eathcliff w anted to hang " e v e ry being belonging to her, except one: possibly she took that excep tion for h e rself/"39 T h e exception, o f course, w as C a th y , E d g a rs w ife. B ut for this em otional nothing, this inferred regard fo r h er as an exception to his general hatred of h er fam ily and friends, she could w atch h er dog tortured, slow ly killed for all she kn ew , since she did not rescue it.

T h is is a m oral bankruptcy fam iliar to w o m en in love, w h o will give up ev eryth in g to be the exception. T h e real point is that h avin g no h onor is an integral part o f the fem ale condition, especially the fem ininity o f the w om an ini love.

C a th y has w arned Isabella o f her "'deplorable ignorance o f his ch a ra c te r . . . H e's not a rough d iam on d— a pearl-containing o yste r of a rustic: he's a fierce, pitiless, w olfish m an. '" 40 H er love does not depend on bad reading; she k n o w s H eathcliff.

H eathcliff elopes w ith Isabella to cut h er o ff from h er fam ily, to h u rt Edgar and C a th y , to com prom ise her. In m arriage, he brutalizes her. "'S h e d egenerates into a m ere slut! " 'h e tells N elly. '"S h e is tired o f tryin g to please m e u n com m on ly early. Y ou 'd hardly credit it, but the v e ry m o rro w of o u r w edding, she w as w eep in g to g o h o m e. '" 41 Isabella confides that she w an ted to g o h o m e "in tw e n ty -fo u r h o u rs a fter I left i t .. Z'42 T h ese are referen ces to the w edd ing night: for the n in eteen th cen tu ry, th ey are o v ert referen ces to a brutal m arital rape, particularly underscored w h e n H eath cliff calls his w ife a slut to a servan t. T h e carnal abuse o f Isabella is unrelenting: " . . . Ill not repeat his lan guage, nor describe his habitual conduct: he is ingenious and unresting in seeking to gain m y abhorrence! I som etim es w o n d er at him w ith an in ten sity that deadens m y fear: yet, I assu re you , a tiger o r a ven o m o u s serpent could not rou se terro r in m e equal to that w h ich he w a k en s. "43 She run s a w a y. He had the legal a u th o rity to find h er and bring h e r back. It is clear that he traces h er and k n o w s w h e re she is. B ut the sexu al sadism , the sadism o f the m arriage

relation, has bored him. He leaves her be. Em otionally, she w ants revenge; he has m anaged to turn her into som eone w h o w an ts to inflict pain because it w as inflicted on h e r : '" . . . but w h at m isery laid on H eathcliff could content me, unless I have a hand in it? I'd rather he suffered less, if I m ight cause his su fferin gs and he m ight know that I w as the cause. O h , I ow e him so m u ch /"44 But before she runs aw ay, there is a m om ent of another kind o f violence, a violence rooted m ore in justice than revenge: "I s u r v e y e d th e w e a p o n in q u isitiv e ly . A h id e o u s n o tio n stru c k me: h o w p o w e r fu l I sh o u ld be p o s se s sin g su ch a n in s tru m e n t! I to o k it fro m his h a n d , and to u c h e d th e blade. H e lo o k e d a sto n ish e d a t th e e x p r e s sio n on my

face a ssu m e d d u rin g a b r ie f secon d: it w a s n o t h o r r o r , it w a s

c o v e t o u s n e s s . "45

T h e weapon is Hindley's; Isabella is supposed to lock H eathcliff's door, because Hindley thinks o th erw ise he, Hindley, will kill H eathcliff.

Th e m om ent o f recognition that she could kill H eathcliff— the pow er a w eapon would give her— is a m om ent of dignity. It is a single, lucid perception of a right to self-defense. It is a single, lucid perception o f a right to execution: a right m orally undeniable to battered w ives; a right renounced som etim es for escape, som etim es because w om en will not kill. This m orally relentless book, this radical dissection of violence, gives quiet, quick consideration to w h at w e will not yet discuss: the right o f a battered w ife to execu te the man w h o tortures her. T he point is not an equality of violence, nor is it in an equality of sadism — the point is not that he should suffer. T h e point is that he m ust be dead for her to be free. T h e point is that there is dignity and freedom

in executing him. Sadism

is in the long, d raw n -out

vengeance; justice is in stopping the torture.

C h arlo tte Bronte, trying to defend her sister because Emily had w ritten a rude, untam ed book, w rote: "H avin g form ed these beings she did not kn o w w h at she had done. "46 I think she did; and that w e have not yet faced w h at Emily B ronte k n e w and said and show ed. I w an t us to read her w hen w e read Fanon and M illett; w h en w e think about race and gend er and revolution; w h en w e discuss questions of violence and sadism. "'I've dream t in m y life dream s that have stayed w ith me ev er a fte r/ " says C a th y , "'and changed m y ideas: th ey've gon e th rou gh and th ro u gh me, like w in e th ro u gh w ater, and altered

the colour of m y m ind /"47 T o som e w h o have read it, Wuthering Heights is such a dream . N o w it is tim e to read it fully aw ake.

Notes 1. C u r r e r B ell [ C h a r lo tte B ro n te ], "B io g ra p h ic a l N o tic e o f Ellis a n d A c to n B ell [E m ily and A n n e B r o n te ] , " S e p t e m b e r 19 , 18 5 0 , x ix - x x v i, in E m ily B r o n te , Wuthering Heights ( N e w Y o r k : R a n d o m H o u s e / T h e M o d e r n L ib ra ry , 19 7 8 ), pp. x x i v - x x v .

2. C u r r e r B ell, "E d ito r's P r e fa c e to th e N e w E d itio n o f Wuthering Heights u n d a te d , x x v ii- x x x ii, in B r o n te , Wuthering Heights, x x v iii.

3. B e ll, " E d it o r 's P r e f a c e , " x x iv .

4. E m ily B r o n t e , Wuthering Heights, p. 9 5 .

5. B r o n t e , Wuthering Heights, p. 9 7 .

6. B r o n t e , Wuthering Heights, p. 1 9 7 .

7. B r o n t e , Wuthering Heights, p. 5 1 .

8. B r o n t e , Wuthering Heights, p. 5 4 .

9. B r o n t e , Wuthering Heights, p. 1 4 9 .

10 . B r o n t e , W uthering Heights, pp. 4 2 - 4 3 .

1 1 . B r o n t e , W uthering Heights, p. 43.

12 . B r o n t e , Wuthering Heights, p. 6 6 .

13 . B r o n t e , W uthering Heights, p. 6 3 .

14 . B r o n t e , W uthering Heights, p. 6 2 .

1 5 . B r o n t e , W uthering Heights, p. 79 .

16 . B r o n t e , W uthering Heights, p. 9 5 .

1 7 . B r o n t e , W uthering Heights, p. 9 7 .

18 . B r o n t e , W uthering Heights, p. 1 8 9 .

19 . B r o n t e , W uthering Heights, p. 9 3.

20. B r o n t e , W uthering Heights, p. 1 3 2 .

2 1 . B r o n t e , W uthering Heights, p. 1 7 9 .

22. B r o n t e , W uthering Heights, p. 3 1 8 .

23. B r o n t e , W uthering Heights, p. 7 1 .

24. B r o n t e , W uthering Heights, p. 7 7 .

2 5 . B r o n t e , W uthering Heights, p. 44 .

26. B r o n t e , W uthering Heights, p. 76 .

2 7 . B r o n t e , W uthering Heights, p. 86.

28. B r o n t e , W uthering Heights, p. 1 2 9 .

29. B r o n t e , W uthering Heights, p. 2 1 9 .

30. B r o n t e , W uthering Heights, p. 1 9 3 .

3 1 . B r o n t e , W uthering Heights, p. 3 2 4 .

32. B r o n te , Wuthering Heights, p. 3 1 6 .

33. B r o n te , Wuthering Heights, p. 3 3 1 .

34. B r o n te , Wuthering Heights, p. 3 0 5.

3 5 . B r o n te , Wuthering Heights, p. 338 .

36. B r o n te , Wuthering Heights, p. 16 0 .

3 7 . B r o n te , Wuthering Heights, p. 1 7 6 .

38. B r o n te , Wuthering Heights, p. 1 7 7 .

39. B r o n te , Wuthering Heights, p. 1 7 7 .

40. B r o n te , Wuthering Heights, p. 120 .

4 1 . B r o n te , Wuthering Heights, p. 1 7 6 .

42. B r o n te , Wuthering Heights, p. 16 0 .

43. B r o n te , Wuthering Heights, p. 1 7 0 .

44. B r o n te , Wuthering Heights, p. 2 1 1 .

4 5. B r o n te , Wuthering Heights, p. 1 6 5 .

46. B ell, " E d i t o r s P r e f a c e , " x x ix 4 7. B r o n te , Wuthering Heights, p. 93.

Voyage in the Dark: Hers and Ours

In my class at the University of Minnesota I also taught this book by Jean Rhys. I like her toughness. I like her lack of sentimentality. I hate her twenty-seven-year silence, and it hurts me that she published so little. Her work was lost once, and I see it fading now. To last, work must not only be in print, stay in print, but other writers must use it, be influenced by it, value it. If those other writers are women, their work will disappear too, you see.

V

V

by Jean R hys, first published in 1934, is a small, terrifyin g m asterpiece. T h e sam e could be said o f Quartet o y a g e in t h e

D

ark

(1928), Leaving M r M ackenzie (1931), Good M orning, M idnight (1939), and Wide Sargasso Sea (1966). I h ave not been able to find The Left Bank, first published in 1927. T h e tw e n ty -se v e n -y e a r silence b etw e en Good M orning, M idnight and Wide Sargasso Sea su g ge sts th at w ritin g sm all, terrifyin g m asterpieces is not a rew a rd in g activity fo r a w o m an .

Elegant, hard as nails, w ith o u t a shred o f sen tim en tality, R h y s w rites, usually in the first person, o f w o m en as lost in gen u es, lonely com m odities floating fro m m an to m an; the m an u ses th e w o m a n and pays h er o ff w h e n he is tired o f her; w ith each m an, th e w o m a n s value

lessens,

she

becom es

m ore

used,

m ore

tattered,

m ore

sh op w orn . T h ese books are ab o u t h o w m en use w o m en : n ot h o w society punishes w o m en fo r h avin g sex bu t h o w m en punish w o m e n w ith w h o m th ey w a n t to h a ve sex, w ith w h o m th ey h ave had sex.

T h e fem inist m axim , Every woman is one man aw ay from welfare, is tru e bu t banal up against R h y s 's portrait o f the w o m an alone; th ere is no

welfare; only poverty, hom elessness, desperation, and the eventual and inevitable need to find another man.

In Voyage in the D ark, Victor is paying off A nn a, the narrator, for his friend, Walter. He looks at a photograph o f an actress, A nna's friend, Laurie. "'S h e really is pretty. But hard— a bit hard/ as if he w ere talking to himself. 'T h ey get like that. It's a pity. '" 1 His stone-co>ld arrogance

is conveyed

and

so

is the

narrator's

own

lonely

nonexistence: as if he were talking to himself. H er consciousness takes him in— his style, his m eaning— and also m akes real for the reader the fact that she does not exist for him. R hys creates w om en w h o are perceived by men as pieces, bou ght on the m arket, but the w om an herself says w hat life is like: describes the man and the transaction and h er feelings before and during and after, her existence within the fram ew ork of his existence and sim ultaneously her existence outside the sphere of his im agination altogether: the w om an w h o is the piece, yes, and w h o at the same time sees, feels, know s, w h o has bitter w it and sharp irony, w h o is caustic, w h o lives in w h at men dignify for them selves as an existential despair, w h o m ust survive in a world men make sm aller than her intelligence. "I w as thinking, 'I'm nineteen and I've got to go on living and living and living. '" 2 O n the surface the w om an is the pretty thing, the ingenue alone and on her w a y dow n, and under the surface she has the narrator's consciousness, an objective intelligence that notes every detail o f m eaning. It is a cold, hard intelligence. W om en are judged in a m an's world by the surface.

R hys plays the narrator's surface, w h at it m eans to m en, against the narrator's consciousness. T h e m en m eet h er body. T h e y n ever m eet her intelligence. T h e y could not hypothesize it or im agine it or w ithstand it. T h ey never k n o w that she is seeing them ; only that they are seeing her.

T h e arrogance o f the m en is level, civil, polite, m annered, disdainful but w ithou t physical aggression; these are rich johns, not violent rapists. T h e y buy, they don't steal. T h e y bu y goods, not people, certainly not people like them selves. T h e disdain is w h a t th ey feel for this low er life-form that exists for their pleasure: Mr Jones said, "He knew you'd be either eighteen or twenty-two. You girls only have two ages. You're eighteen and so of course your friend's twentytwo. O f course."3

T h e contem pt is like som e im perm eable finish, glossy, p olyu reth an e, a hard, glossy shell; no pores; nothing g ets in or o u t T h e narrator captures ev ery nuance of this contem pt. '"P o o r little A n n a/ m aking his voice ve ry kind. I'm so dam ned so rry y o u 've been h avin g d bad tim e/ M aking his voice v e ry kind, but the look in his e yes w a s like a h igh, sm ooth, unclim bable wall. N o com m unication possible. Y ou h ave to be th ree-qu arters mad even to attem pt it. "4 A nn a is eighteen w h en the sto ry opens. She is on the road in a vaudeville sh o w . She is used to m en picking h er up. Sh e has not had sex. W alter takes h er to dinner. She discovers it is d in ner in a suite o f room s w ith a bedroom . "H e kissed m e again, and his m outh w as hard, and I rem em bered him sm elling th e glass o f w in e and I couldn't think o f an yth in g but that, and I hated him . 'L ook here, let m e g o /1 said."5 1 remembered him smelling the glass of wine and I couldn't think of anything but that: in this one detail, the n arrator is forcin g us to rem em b er th at the man is a consum er, not a lover. R efu sin g him , she g o es into the bedroom . She w a n ts love, rom ance: "S o o n h e ll com e in again and kiss me, but d ifferen tly. H e ll be d ifferen t and so 111 be d ifferen t. It'l l be d ifferen t.

I th ou gh t,

'It'l l

be d ifferen t, d ifferen t.

It m u st

be

d ifferen t. '" 6 He doesn't com e in; she lies on the bed, cold: "T h e fire w as like a painted fire; no w a rm th cam e fro m it. "7 He w a its fo r h er to com e out, takes h er h om e, back to an em p ty, cold, rented room . Sh e becom es ill, and w rite s him a note asking fo r help. He visits her, helps her, g iv es h er m on ey, pays the landlady to take care o f her, finds o th e r room s fo r h er fo r w h e n she is w ell, and the rom ance begins. Sh e is not b o u gh t fo r a night; instead, she has the lon g-term em otional and m aterial secu rity o f an affair, bein g his until he is tired o f her. Sh e tells him she is not a virgin, bu t she is. A fte r m aking love the first tim e, she thinks: '"W h e n I shu t m y e y es 111 be able to see this room all m y life. '" 8 S h e doesn't look in the m irror to see if she has changed. "I th o u g h t that it had been just like the girls said, excep t that I hadn't k n o w n it w ou ld h u rt so m u ch . "9 Sh e w a s infatu ated . She w a n ted to be valued, loved. Instead, she had to g et up in the m iddle o f th e n igh t to sneak o u t o f his bedroom and o u t o f his h ouse, a w o m an alone in th e big n ight. " O f co u rse, y o u g et used to th in gs, y o u g et used to a n y th in g . "10 S h e is happy and she is afraid; she k n o w s h e r happiness w ill end.

W arned by h er friend, M audie, older and also in vau deville, she m akes the tragic m istake. " 'O n ly , don't g et soppy ab o u t h im ' [M audie) said.

T h a t 's fatal. T h e thing w ith men is to get everyth in g you can out of them and not care a damn. Y ou ask any girl in London— or any girl in the w hole world if it com es to that [...]'" 11 W hen W alter is finished w ith her, she know s it: "I w anted to pretend it w as like the night before, but it w asn't any use. Being afraid is cold like ice/and it's like w h en you can't breathe. 'Afraid o f w h a t? ' I th ou gh t. "12 She sees W alter put m oney in her purse. She begins the inevitable descent; the first man over and done with; the others waiting; no m oney o f her ow n; no home. She w anders through a w o rld of men and rented room s. N othing assuages her grief: "Really all you w ant is night, and to lie in the dark and pull the sheet o ver you r head and sleep, and before you kn ow w h ere you are it is night— that's one good thing.

Y ou pull the sheet o ver you r head and think, 'H e got sick of m e, 'an d 'N ever, not ever, n ever. ' And then you go to sleep. Y o u sleep very quickly w hen you are like that and you don't dream either. It's as if you w ere dead."13 (Today w e call this grief "depression. " W om en have it. ) But this is no story o f a w om an 's broken heart. This is the story o f a w om an w h o is, in the eyes o f the m en w h o behold her, a tart, w h eth er her heart is broken or not. "'I picked up a girl in London and sh e__ Last night I slept w ith a girl w h o — ' T h at w as me. N ot 'girl' perhaps.

Som e other word, perhaps. N ever m ind. "14 N o one has w ritten about a w om an 's desperation quite like this— the great loneliness, the great coldness, the great fear, in living in a world w here, as one man observes, "'a girl's clothes cost m ore than the girl inside th em . '" 15 Eliot and H ardy have w ritten vividly, unforgettably, about w om en in desperate dow nfalls, ostracized and punished by and because of a sexual double standard— I think of H etty in Adam Bede and T e ss in Tess of the D'Urbervilles; H aw th orn e also did this in The Scarlet Utter. But R hys sim ply gives us the w om an as w om an, the w om an alone, her undiluted essence as a w om an , h o w m en see her and w h at she is for. T h ere is a contem porary sense of alienation— distance and detachm ent from any social mosaic, except that the men and the m on ey are the social m osaic. Society is simpler; exploitation is simpler; survival depends on being the thing m en w an t to use, even as there is no hope at all fo r survival on those term s, just goin g on and on, the sam e but poorer and older. A nna observes the desperate m asquerade o f w om en to g et from day to day:

T h e c lo th e s o f m o st o f th e w o m e n w h o p a ssed w e r e like c a r ic a tu r e s o f th e c lo th e s in th e s h o p - w in d o w s , b u t w h e n th e y sto p p e d to lo o k y o u s a w th at th e ir e y e s w e r e fix e d o n th e fu tu r e . "If I co u ld b u y th is, th e n o f c o u r s e I'd be q u ite d if f e r e n t . " K e e p h o p e a liv e a n d y o u c a n d o a n y th in g [ . . . ] B u t w h a t h a p p e n s if y o u d o n 't h o p e a n y m o re , if y o u r b a c k 's b r o k e n ? W h a t h a p p e n s t h e n ? 16

Sh e paints a deep despair in w om en , each, fo r the sake of to m o rro w , continually a w a re o f h er o w n w o rth on the m arket, thinking alw ays o f the dressed surface that does cost m ore than she costs.

A nn a becom es p regnant from one o f her casual en cou n te rs and Voyage in

the D ark

ends

w ith

a graphic, virtually

unbearable

description o f an illegal abortion and A n n a 's su bsequ en t near death from bleeding. T h e doctor can be called once th ere are com plications, told she fell d o w n the steps. " 'O h , so y o u had a fall, did y o u ? [ .. . ] Y ou girls are too naive to live, aren 't y o u ? [ .. . ] S h e ll be all righ t [ . . . ] R eady to start all o v e r again in no tim e, I've no d ou b t. '" 17 A n n a is eigh teen w h en the book begins, nin eteen w h en it ends.

In Voyage in the D ark, R h ys uses race to underline A n n a's total estra n g em en t from w h a t is taken to be m iddle-class reality. A n n a has been raised in the W est Indies, fifth -gen eration W est Indian on her m oth er's side, as she brags to W alter. T h is boast and an accusation from h er step m o th er su g gest that A n n a 's m oth er w as black. But h er status is w h ite, the legitim ate d au g h ter o f a w h ite fath er w h o has m an y illegitim ate black children. Being w h ite estran ges h er from these undeniable relatives and from the black society in w h ich she lives. Sh e is alien. H er step m o th er blam es A n n a's inability to m arry up in England on h er closeness w ith blacks in h er childhood: "I tried to teach yo u to talk like a lady and beh ave like a lady and not like a nigger and o f cou rse I couldn't do it. Im possible to g et you a w a y from the se rv a n ts—

Exactly like a n igger you talked— and still d o . "18 H avin g

sex w ith W alter, all she can think about is so m eth in g she sa w w h e n she w a s a child, an old slave list, the m u latto slaves: "M aillo tte B oyd, aged 18, m ulatto, h ouse se rv a n t. "19 She is eigh teen , possibly m ulatto; in the sex act, this o th e r w o m an , like her, h au n ts her. B ut A n n a k n o w s she is an o utsid er to blacks, not accepted by the servan ts: "B u t I k n e w that o f co u rse she disliked m e too because I w a s w h ite; and that I w ou ld n ever be able to explain to h e r that I hated being w h ite. Being w h ite and g ettin g like H ester [the stepm other] and all the th in gs you

g e t— old and sad and everything. I kept thinking, 'No.. N o —

And I

knew that day that I'd started to g ro w old and nothing could stop it. "20 She hates London: "This is London— hundreds of thousands of w hite people w hite people [...]"21 She contrasts the w hite people w ith the dark houses, the dark streets; in literary term s, she m akes the w hite skin stand out against the dark backdrop of the city. A nna is a total outsider, belonging

now here.

Voyage in the Dark exposes and

condem ns the colonial racism of the English; and it also uses A n n a s outsider state-of-being to underscore the m etaphysical exile of any w om an alone, any w om an as a w om an per se, an exile from the world of men and the hum an w orth they have, the m oney and pow er they have; an exile especially from the legitim acy that inheres simply in being male.

N ow : in 1934 Jean Rhys published a book about w om en as sexual commodities; sophisticated and brilliant, it show ed the loneliness, the despair, the fear, and by show ing h o w m en look at and value and use w om en, it show ed h o w all w om en live their lives in relation to this particular bottom line, this fate, this being bought-and-sold. And in 1934, Jean Rhys published a book that described an illegal abortion, show ed its often terminal horror, and also show ed h o w it w as sim ply part o f w h at a w om an w as supposed to undergo, the sam e w a y she w as supposed to be used and then abandoned, or poor, or hom eless, or at the m ercy of a male buyer. Jean Rhys is one of m any "lost w om en'' w riters rediscovered and w idely read in the 1970s because of the interest in w om en's w riting generated by the current w ave of feminism. People are happy to say she w as a great w riter w ith ou t m uch m eaning it and certainly w ith ou t paying any serious attention to the substance of her work: to w hat she said. She w ro te about the loneliness o f being a w om an, poor and hom eless, better than anyone I k n o w of. She w ro te about w h at being used takes from you and h o w you never get it back. W om en w h o should have been reading h er read The Catcher in the Rye or Jean G en et instead because her books w ere gone. We had books by men on prostitution and street life: G en et's broke som e n ew ground, but there is a long history o f men w ritin g on prostitution. In fact, at the beginning of Voyage in the Dark, R hys m akes a w riterly joke about those books. Anna is reading Zola's N ana: "M audie said, 'I know ; it's about a tart. I think it's disgusting. I bet you a m an w riting a book about a tart tells a lot o f lies one w a y and

anoth er. Besides, all books are like th a t— just som ebody stu ffin g you u p / "22 Well, Voyage in the D ark, a book by a w o m an , doesn't just "stu ff you up. " It is, finally, a tru th fu l book. It is, at the v e ry least, a big part o f the truth; and, I think, a lot closer to the w h o le tru th than the w o m e n s m ovem en t that resurrected h er w o rk w ou ld like to think.

Som etim es I look around at m y gen eratio n of w o m en w riters, the o n es a little older and a little y o u n g e r too, and I k n o w w e will be gon e: disappeared the w a y Jean R hys w as disappeared. Sh e w a s b etter than m ost o f us are. She said m ore in the little she w r o te — w ith h er tw en ty -sev en -y ea r silence. H er n arrative gen iu s w a s just that: geniu s. W e expect o u r m ediocre little books to last fo rever, and don't even th in k th ey h ave to risk a n yth in g to do so. Y et, the fine books of o u r tim e b y w o m en g o out o f print continually; som e are b ro u g h t back, m ost are not. I w ish I had g ro w n up reading Jean R h ys. I did g r o w up reading D . H. L aw ren ce and Jean G e n e t and H en ry M iller.

B ut h er tru th w a sn 't allow ed to live. T o hell w ith th eir fig h ts against censorship; she w a s obliterated. I co u ld n't learn fro m h er w o rk because it w asn 't there. A n d I needed Jean R h ys a hell o f a lot m ore than I needed the above-nam ed bad boys: as a w o m an and as a w rite r.

I d on 't k n o w w h y w e n o w , w e w o m e n w rite rs, thin k th at o u r books are g o in g to live. T h e re is n oth in g to indicate that th in gs in gen eral h ave changed fo r w o m en w riters. I k n o w the children o f the fu tu re will h ave a lot o f sexy literary trash fro m m en; bu t I don't th in k th ey will h ave m uch by w o m en that sh o w s even as m uch as Jean R h ys sh ow ed in 1934. T h is disappearance o f w o m en w rite rs costs us; this is a lot w o rse than h avin g to rein ven t the w h eel. W hen a w o m an w rite r is 'lo s t, " the possibilities o f the w o m en a fte r h er are lost too; h er tru e perceptions are driven ou t o f existen ce and w e are left w ith books by m en th at tell "a lot o f lies on e w a y and a n o th e r. " T h ese are lies that keep w o m en lost in all senses: th e w rite rs, the A n n as. W e h a v e not d on e m uch to stop o u rselves fro m being w iped o u t becau se w e th in k that w e are the exceptional gen era tio n , d ifferen t fro m all the on es that cam e before: the lon e g en era tio n to en d u re m ale dom inance (w e say w e are fig h tin g it) by w ritin g about it. O u r dead sisters, their books buried w ith them , try not to laugh.

Notes 1. Jean R h y s, Voyage in the Dark (N e w Y o rk : P o p u la r L ib ra ry , n. d . ), p.

2.

3.

4.

5.

93.

Jean R h y s, Voyage in the Dark, p. 11.

Jean R h y s, Voyage in the Dark, p. 148.

Jean R h y s, Voyage in the Dark, p. 19.

Jean R h y s, Voyage in the Dark, p.

6. Jean R h y s, Voyage in the Dark, p. 20.

7. Jean R h y s, Voyage in the Dark, p. 20.

8. Jean R h y s, Voyage in the Dark, p. 31.

9. Jean R h y s, Voyage in the Dark, p. 32.

10. Jean R h y s, Voyage in the Dark, pp. 34-35.

11. Jean R h y s, Voyage in the Dark, p. 38.

12. Jean R h y s , Voyage in the Dark, p. 74.

13. Jean R h y s , Voyage in the Dark, p. 120.

14. Jean R h y s , Voyage in the Dark, pp. 134-35.

15. Jean R h y s, Voyage in the Dark, p. 39.

16. Jean R h y s, Voyage in the Dark, p. 112.

17. Jean R h y s, Voyage in the Dark, p. 160.

18. Jean R h y s , Voyage in the Dark, p. 55.

19. Jean R h y s, Voyage in the Dark, p. 44.

20. Jean R h y s, Voyage in the Dark, p. 60.

21. Jean R h y s, Voyage in the Dark, p. 15.

22. Jean R h y s, Voyage in the Dark, p. 9.

149.

Ill

T A K E

T HE

B A C K

DAY

O n e m u s t talk, a fte r all; s h a r e in te r e s ts w it h th e p e o p le o n e s s u r r o u n d e d by. W h a t k in d o f h u m b u g , in a c ity o f ra p ists, h o ld s o u t fo r th e d ig n ity o f w o m a n h o o d ?

John G a r d n e r , Shadows

A Feminist Looks at Saudi Arabia 1978

It's hard to fight liberals. They slip and slide. Jimmy Carter had a human rights dimension to his foreign policy so that South Africa was held accountable for its racism. Countries that systematically segregate women, like Saudi Arabia, had nothing to fear from this human rights president. Now that Reagan's support of apartheid is Amerikan foreign policy, people may think the points made in this essay are glib or cheap. I hate apartheid, in South Africa and in Saudi Arabia, on the basis of race or on the basis of sex. Do women matter or not? Is there a single standard of human rights that includes women or not?

S

I c a n n o t believe the w o rld I live in. U sually I g o along, believing. A s a fem inist and a w riter, I stu d y rape, p o rn ograp h y,

o m e t im e s

w ife-beating. I see the abused bodies o f w o m en , in life and in new sp apers. I m eet, in life and in books, the torn m inds, the locked-in victim s. I grieve, I rage, but th ro u gh it all, I believe. T h is ability to believe com es, no doubt, from h earin g as a child the desp erate m em ories o f those, som e in m y o w n fam ily, w h o su rvived Nazi con cen tration cam ps and Russian pogrom s. Being a Jew, one learns to believe

in the reality o f cru elty

and one learns to reco gn ize

in d ifferen ce to hum an su fferin g as a fact.

Som etim es th ou gh , m y cred ulity is strained. T h e fact th at w o m en , a fte r o v e r half a cen tu ry o f stru gg le, apparen tly will not h a ve equal righ ts under the law in this co u n try is d ifficult to believe, especially on those g ro tesq u e days w h en M r C a r te r m akes im passioned sta te 足 m ents on the im portan ce o f hu m an righ ts elsew h ere. D isbelief leads me to w o n d er w h y the plight o f m ale dissidents in Russia o v erta k es M r C a r t e r s not v e ry em pathetic im agination w h en w o m e n in this

co u n try are in m ental institutions or lobotom ized o r simply beaten to death o r nearly to death by m en w h o do not like the w ay they have done the laundry or prepared dinner. A nd on days w h en this sanctim onious president m akes certain that poor w om en will not have access to life-saving abortion, and tells us w ith ou t em barrass­ m ent that "life is unfair, " m y disbelief verges on raw anguish. I ask m yself w h y the pervasive sexual tyrann y in this co u n try — the tyrann y o f m en o ver w om en, w ith its sym ptom atic expression in econom ic deprivation and legal discrim ination— is not, at least, on the list o f hum an rights violations that M r C a rter keeps on the tip o f his forked tongue.

But m ostly, inability to believe surfaces on days w h en M r C a rter and

his

cronies— and

yes,

I m ust

admit,

especially

A n d rew

Y o u n g — discuss o ur good friend, Saudi Arabia. T h at is, their good friend, Saudi Arabia. I hear on new scasts that M r C a rte r w as enchanted by Saudi Arabia, that he had a w ond erfu l time. I rem em ber that M rs C a rter used the back door. I rem em ber that the use of contraceptives in Saudi Arabia is a capital crime. I rem em ber that in Saudi Arabia, w om en are a despised and im prisoned caste, denied all civil rights, sold into m arriage, im prisoned as sexual and dom estic servants in harem s. I rem em ber that in Saudi Arabia w om en are forced to breed babies, w h o had better be boys, until th ey die.

Disbelief increases in intensity as I think about South Africa, w h ere suddenly the United States is on the side of the angels. Like m ost of m y generation o f the proud and notorious sixties, a considerable part o f m y life has been spent organizing against apartheid, there and here. T h e connections have alw ays been palpable. T h e ruthless econom ic and sexual interests o f the exploiters h ave alw ays been clear. T h e contem ptuous racism o f the tw o vile system s has h u rt m y heart and given me good reason to think "dem ocracy" a psychotic lie.

Slow ly activists have forced o u r govern m en t, stubborn in its support o f pure evil, to acknow ledge in its foreign policy that racist system s of social organization are abhorrent and intolerable. T h e shallow ness of this n ew com m itm ent is evident in the alm ost com ical slogan that supposedly articulates the aspirations o f the despised: O n e M an , O n e V ote. A m erikan foreign policy has finally cau ght up, just barely, w ith the hum an rights im peratives of the early nin eteenth cen tury,

rendered reactionary if not obsolete by the Seneca Falls C o n v e n tio n in 1848.

Seductive m irages o f progress n o tw ith stan d in g, n o w h e re in the w orld is apartheid practiced w ith m ore cru elty and finality than in Saudi Arabia. O f course, it is w o m en w h o are locked in and kept out, exiled to invisibility and abject p o w erlessn ess w ithin their o w n co u n try. It is w o m en w h o are degraded system atically from birth to early death, u tterly and totally and w ith o u t exception deprived of freedom . It is w o m en w h o are sold into m arriage or concubinage, o ften before puberty; killed if their h ym en s are not intact on the w edding night; kept confined, ign orant, pregnant, poor, w ith o u t choice o r recourse. It is w o m en w h o are raped and beaten w ith full sanction o f the law . It is w o m en w h o cann ot o w n p rop erty or w o rk for a living or determ in e in a n y w a y the circu m stan ces o f th eir o w n lives. It is w o m en w h o are subject to a despotism that k n o w s no restraint. W om en, locked pu t and locked in. M r C a rte r, en ch an ted w ith his good friends, the Saudis. M r C a rte r, a sincere advocate o f h um an rights. Som etim es even a fem inist w ith a realistic kn o w led ge o f m ale h ypocrisy and a stron g stom ach cann ot believe the w orld she lives in.

A Battered Wife Survives 1978

This essay is now ten years old. Wife-beating is the most commonly committed violent crime in the United States, according to the FBI. In New Hampshire, I meet eighteen-year-old women who work in a battered women $ shelter. One talks about how she feels when women decide to go home and she has to drive them. In Toronto, I meet two women who travel through rural Canada in the dead of winter to find and help battered women. In a project called " O ff the Beaten Path,” Susan Faupel is walking 600 miles— from Chicago, Illinois, to Little Rock, Arkansas— for battered women. In a southern state, I am driven to the airport by an organizer of the rally I have just spoken at; the car keeps veering off the road as she says she is being battered now; when? I keep asking; now, now, she says; she has gone to the organizing meetings for the antipornography demonstrations with make-up covering the bruises on her face.

In the South especially I meet lesbians, married with children, who are being beaten by their husbands— afraid to leave because they would lose their children, battered because they are lesbian. In Seattle, I find safe houses, secret from most feminists, for women being beaten by their women lovers. In small towns where there are no shelters, especially in the North and Midwest, I find safe houses organized like an underground railroad for women escaping battery.

I knew not but the next Would be my final inch— Emily Dickinson

I

n a few

d a y s , I w ill t u r n t h ir t y - o n e . I a m filled w it h b o t h p rid e

a n d d read .

T h e pride com es from accom plishm ent. I have done w h a t I w anted

to do m ore than any oth er thin g in life. I have becom e a w riter, published tw o books o f in tegrity and w o rth . I did not k n o w w h at those tw o books w ould cost me, h o w v e ry difficult it w ould be to w rite them , to su rvive the opposition to them . I did not im agine that th ey w ould dem and o f me ruthless devotion, spartan discipline, continu ing m aterial deprivation, visceral an xiety about the rudim ents o f survival, and a faith in m yself m ade m ore o f iron than innocence. I h ave also learned to live alone, developed a rigorou s em otional independence,

a

self-directed

creative

will,

and

a

passionate

com m itm en t to m y o w n sense o f right and w ro n g . T h is I had to learn not o nly to do, but to w a n t to do. I h ave learned not to lie to m yself about w h a t I valu e— in art, in love, in friendship. I h a ve learned to take responsibility for m y o w n intense convictions and m y o w n real lim itations. I h ave learned to resist m ost o f the form s of coercion and flattery that w ould rob me o f access to m y o w n conscience. I believe that, for a w om an , I h ave accom plished a g reat deal.

The

dread

com es

from

m em ory.

M em o ry

of

terro r

and

insupportable pain can o v erp o w er the present, any p resent, cast sh ad ow s so dark that the mind falters, unable to find light, and the body trem bles, unable to find an y solid grou n d . T h e past literally o vertak es one, seizes one, holds on e im m obile in dread. Each year, near m y birthday, I rem em ber, involu ntarily, that w h en I w as tw e n ty -fiv e I w as still a battered w ife, a w o m an w h o se w h o le life w as speechless desperation. By the tim e I w as tw en ty -six I w as still a terrorized w om an . T h e husband I had left w ou ld com e o u t of n o w h e re, beat or hit o r kick m e, disappear. A g h o st w ith a fist, a ligh tning flash follow ed by rivetin g pain. T h e r e w a s no protection or safety. I w as ripped up inside. M y m ind w as still on the edge of its o w n destruction. S m o th e rin g an xiety, w a k in g nigh tm ares, cold sw eats, sobs that I choked on w e re th e co n stan ts o f m y daily life. I did not breathe; I gulped in air to try to g et en ou g h o f it each m inu te to su rviv e a blow th at m igh t com e a second, any second, later. B ut I had taken the first step: he had to find me; I w as no lon ger at h om e w aitin g for him. O n m y tw e n ty -fifth birthday, w h e n I had lived one q u a rte r o f a cen tu ry, I w as nearly dead, alm ost catatonic, w ith o u t the will to live. By m y tw e n ty -six th birthday, I w an ted m ore than a n yth in g to live. I w a s on e year old, an infan t born ou t of a corpse, still w ith the sm ell o f death on her, but hatin g death. T h is year I am six

years old, and the anguish of m y o w n long and dreadful dying comes back to haunt me. But this year, for the first time, I do m ore than trem ble from the fear that even m em ory brings, I do m ore than grieve. T his year, I sit at m y desk and w rite.

Rape is very terrible. I have been raped and I have talked with hundreds o f w om en w h o have been raped. Rape is an experience that pollutes one's life. But it is an experience that is contained w ithin the boundaries o f one's ow n life. In the end, one's life is larger.

A ssault by a stranger or w ithin a relationship is very terrible. O n e is hurt, undermined, degraded, afraid. But one's life is larger.

A battered w ife has a life sm aller than the terror that destroys her o ver time.

M arriage circumscribes her life. Law, social convention, and economic necessity encircle her. She is roped in. H er pride depends on projecting her o w n satisfaction w ith her lot to fam ily and friends. H er pride depends on believing that her husband is devoted to her and, w h en that is no longer possible, convincing others anyw ay.

T h e husband's violence against her contradicts everyth in g she has been taught about life, m arriage, love, and the sanctity of the family.

Regardless of the circum stances in w hich she g rew up, she has been taught to believe in rom antic love and the essential perfection of married life. Failure is personal. Individuals fail because of w h at is w ro n g w ith them . T h e troubles o f individuals, pervasive as they are, do not reflect on the institution of m arriage, nor do they negate her belief in the happy ending, promised e v ery w h e re as the final result of m ale-fem ale conflict. M arriage is intrinsically good. M arriage is a w om an's proper goal. W ife-beating is not on a w om an 's map of the world w hen she marries. It is, quite literally, beyond her im agination.

Because she does not believe that it could have happened, that he could h ave done th at to her, she cannot believe that it will happen again. He is her husband. N o, it did not happen. And w h en it happens again, she still denies it. It w as an accident, a m istake. A nd w h en it happens again, she blames the hardships of his life outside the home.

T h ere he experiences terrible hurts and frustrations. T h ese account for his m istreatm ent o f her. She will find a w ay to com fort him, to make it up to him. And w h en it happens again, she blames herself.

Sh e will be better, kinder, quieter, m ore of w h a tever he likes, less of

w h a te v e r he dislikes. A nd w h en it happens again, and w h en it happens again, and w h en it happens again, she learns that she has n o w h ere to go, no one to turn to, no one w h o will believe her, no one w h o will help her, no on e w h o will protect her. If she leaves, she will return. Sh e will leave and return and leave and return. S h e will find that her parents, doctor, the police, h er best friend, the n eigh bors upstairs and across the hall and n ext door, all despise the w o m an w h o cannot keep h er o w n h o use in order, h er injuries hidden, her despair to herself, h er smile am iable and convincing. S h e will find that society loves its central lie— that m arriage m eans happiness— and h ates th e w o m an w h o stops telling it even to save h er o w n life.

T h e m em ory o f the physical pain is vague. I rem em ber, o f cou rse, that I w as hit, that I w as kicked. I do not rem em b er w h e n o r h o w o ften . It blurs. I rem em b er him banging m y head against the flo o r until I passed out. I rem em b er being kicked in the stom ach. I rem em b er being hit o ver and over, the blow s h ittin g d ifferen t parts o f m y body as I tried to g et a w a y fro m him . I rem em b er a terrible leg in ju ry from a series o f kicks. I rem em ber cryin g and I rem em b er scream ing and I rem em b er beggin g. I rem em b er him p u n chin g m e in th e breasts. O n e can rem em b er that one had horrible physical pain, bu t that m em o ry does n ot bring the pain back to the body. Blessedly, th e m ind can rem em b er these ev en ts w ith o u t the body reliving them . If one su rvives w ith o u t p erm an ent injury, the physical pain dims, recedes, ends. It lets go.

T h e fear does not let go. T h e fear is the eternal legacy. A t first, th e fear infuses e v e ry m inu te o f e v e ry day. O n e does not sleep. O n e cann ot bear to be alone. T h e fear is in the ca vity o f one's chest. It craw ls like lice on o n e s skin. It m akes the legs buckle, th e h eart race. It locks o n e s jaw . O n e s hands trem ble. O n e s th roat closes up. T h e fear m akes one en tirely desperate. Inside, on e is a lw a y s in upheaval, clinging to a n yon e w h o sh o w s a n y kindness, co w e rin g in th e presence o f an y threat. A s years pass, the fea r recedes, but it does not let go. It n ever lets go. A n d w h e n the m ind rem em b ers fear, it also relives it. T h e victim o f en cap su lating violence carries both the real fear and the m em o ry o f fear w ith h er alw ays. T o g e th e r, th ey w ash o v e r her like an ocean, and if she does not learn to sw im in that terrible sea, she goes under.

And then, there is the fact that, during those w eeks that stretch into years w hen one is a battered w ife, one's mind is shattered slow ly o ve r time, splintered into a thousand pieces. T h e mind is slow ly subm erged in chaos and despair, buried broken and barely alive in an im penetrable tom b o f isolation. This isolation is so absolute, so killing, so morbid, so m alignant and devouring that there is nothing in o n e s life but it, it. O n e is entirely shrouded in a loneliness that no earthquake could m ove. M en have asked over the centuries a question that, in their hands, ironically becom es abstract: "W hat is reality? " T h ey have w ritten complicated volum es on this question.

T h e w om an w h o w as a battered w ife and has escaped k n o w s the answ er: reality is w hen som ething is happening to you and you kn ow it and can say it and w hen you say it o th er people understand w h at you mean and believe you. That is reality, and the battered w ife, imprisoned alone in a nightm are that is happening to her, has lost it and cannot find it anyw here.

I

rem em ber the isolation as the w o rst anguish I have ever know n. I

rem em ber the pure and consum ing m adness of being invisible and unreal, and every blow m aking me m ore invisible and m ore unreal, as the w o rst desperation I have ever know n . I rem em ber those w h o turned aw ay, pretending not to see the injuries— m y parents, dear god, especially m y parents; m y closest fem ale friend, next door, herself suffocating in a m arriage poisoned by psychic, not physical, violence; the doctor so officious and aloof; the w om en in the neighborhood w h o heard every scream; the m en in the neighborhood w h o smiled, yes, lewdly, as they half looked aw ay, half stared, w h en ever they saw me; m y husband's fam ily, especially m y m otherin-law, w hom I loved, m y sisters-in-law , w h o m I loved. I rem em ber the frozen m uscles of m y smile as I gave false explanations o f injuries that

no

one

w anted

to hear an yw ay.

I rem em ber slavishly

conform ing to every external convention that w ould dem onstrate that I w as a "good w ife, " that w ould convince oth er people that I w as happily married. And as the w eigh t of social convention becam e insupportable, I rem em ber w ith d raw in g fu rth e r and fu rth e r into that open grave w h ere so m any w om en hide w aitin g to die— the house. I w e n t ou t to shop only w h en I had to, I walked m y dogs, I ran out scream ing, looking for help and shelter w h en I had the strength to

escape, w ith no m oney, o ften no coat, n othing but terror and tears. I m et only averted eyes, cold stares, and the vu lgar sexual aggression of lone, laughing m en that sent me run nin g hom e to a d an ger that w as at least fam iliar and familial. H om e, m ine as w ell as his. H om e, th e only place I had. Finally, e v ery th in g inside crum bled. I g av e up. I sat, I stared, I w aited, passive and paralyzed, speaking to no one, m inim ally m aintaining m yself and m y anim als, as m y husband stayed a w a y fo r lon ger and lon ger periods o f tim e, slam m ing in only to thrash and leave. N o one m isses the w ife w h o disappears. N o one investigates her disappearance. A fte r aw hile, people stop asking w h e re she is, especially if they have already refused

to face w h a t has been

happening to her. W ives, a fter all, belong in the hom e. N o th in g outside it depends on them . T h is is a bitter lesson, and the battered w ife learns it in the bitterest w ay.

T h e an ger o f the su rviv o r is m urd erou s. It is m ore d an gero u s to h er than to the one w h o h u rt her. She does not believe in m urder, ev en to save herself. She. does not believe in m urder, even th ou gh it w ou ld be m ore m erciful punishm en t than he deserves. She w a n ts him dead but will not kill him. She n ever gives up w a n tin g him dead.

T h e clarity o f the su rviv o r is chilling. O n ce she breaks o u t o f the prison o f terro r and violence in w hich she has been nearly d estroyed , a process that takes years, it is v e ry difficult to lie to h er or to m anipulate her. She sees th ro u gh the social strategies that h ave controlled her as a w om an , the sexual strategies that h ave reduced her to a sh ad ow o f her o w n native possibilities. Sh e k n o w s that her life depends on n ever being taken in by rom antic illusion or sexual hallucination.

T h e em otional se verity o f the su rv iv o r appears to o th ers, e v en those closest to her, to be cold and unyielding, ruth less in its inten sity.

Sh e k n o w s too m uch about su fferin g to try to m easu re it w h en it is real, but she despises self-pity. She is self-protective, not ou t of arrogance, but because she has been ruined by her o w n fragility. Like A n y a , the su rviv o r of the N azi con cen tration cam ps in Susan From berg S c h a e ffe r s beautiful novel o f the sam e nam e, she m ight say: "S o w h at h ave I learned? I have learned not to believe in su fferin g. It is a form o f death. If it is severe en o u g h it is a poison; it

kills the em otions. " She know s that som e o f her ow n em otions have been killed and she distrusts those w h o are infatuated w ith suffering, as if it w ere a source o f life, not death.

In her heart she is a m ourner for those w h o have not survived.

In her soul she is a w arrior for those w h o are now as she w as then.

In her life she is both celebrant and proof of w o m e n s capacity and will to survive, to become, to act, to change self and society. And each year she is stronger and there are m ore of her.

A True and Commonplace Story 1978

This has never been published before.

L

a s t D e c e m b e r , in the m idst o f a blizzard, I had to fly from a small airport in N e w England to R och ester, N e w Y o rk , to d o a

ben efit fo r fo u r w o m en charged w ith com m ittin g a felony: breaking a w in d o w to tear d o w n a poster advertisin g the sadistic, porn ographic film , Snuff, w hich had been playing in a cinem a adjacent to and ow n ed by a local H oliday Inn. T h e w o m en neith er adm itted nor denied com m ittin g the dastardly act, th o u g h the evidence against th em is ephem eral, because th ey w e re convinced, as w a s the w h o le R o ch ester fem inist co m m u n ity, that the act needed doing. A n d a felo n y ch arge, w ith a m axim u m sentence o f fo u r years, w as tran sp aren tly m ore vend etta than justice. Being intelligent and sen sitive w o m e n given to figh tin g fo r the rights o f w o m en , th ey had noticed that the law en fo rcem en t officials in R o ch ester w e re sin gu larly in d ifferen t to the presence o f a film that celebrates the d ism em berm en t o f a w o m an as an orgasm ic act; and that these sam e officials w e re h igh ly disturbed, to the point o f ven gean ce, by the uppity w o m en w h o m ade a stink about the casual exhibition o f this vicious film.

A irp orts are not congenial places fo r w o m en traveling alone, especially on sn o w y d ays w h en planes are d elayed interm in ably. M ost o f the bored p assen gers-to-be are m en. A s m en w ait, th ey drink. T h e lo n ger th ey w ait, the m ore th ey drink. A fte r a fe w h o u rs, an airport on a sto rm y d ay is filled w ith d ru n k en , cru isin g m en w h o fix their sloppy atten tion on the fe w lone w o m en . Such a situation m ay or m ay not be d an gerou s, but it is certain ly unpleasant. H avin g been

followed, harassed, and "seductively"called dirty nam es, I w as pleased to notice another lone fem ale traveler. We looked at each other, then around at the ready-to-pounce m en, and becam e im m ediate and fast friends. M y new traveling com panion w as a student, perhaps tw en ty, w h o w as studying theater at a small liberal arts college. She w as on her w a y to Rochester to visit friends. W e discussed books, plays, w ork, o ur aspirations, and the fu tu re of fem inism. In this w arm and interesting w ay, time passed, and eventually w e arrived in Rochester.

Exiting from the plane, I was, in the crush, felt up quickly but definitively by one o f the men w h o had been trailing me. M y friend and I anguished over "the little rapes" as w e parted.

In subsequent m onths, back in N e w England, I som etim es ran into m y friend in the small tow n w h ere I live. W e had coffee, conversation.

T h e season changed. Spring blossom ed. In Rochester, fem inists had spent these m onths preparing for the trial. Because o f their effective grassroots organizing and a firm refusal by the defendants to plea-bargain, the district atto rn ey had been forced to reduce the charge to a m isdem eanor, w hich carries a m axim um sentence o f one year.

T h en , one day, I received a letter from a R ochester fem inist. T h e trial date w as set. Expert w itnesses w ere lined up to testify to the fact that violent pornography does verifiable harm to w om en. M on ey had been raised. Everyone, while proud of w h a t had been accomplished, w as exhausted and depleted. T h e y w anted me t o com e u p and stay for the duration of the trial to give counsel, com fort, and encouragem ent.

O n this same day, I took a w alk and saw m y friend, but she had changed. She w as som eh ow frail, very old even in her obvious youth, nearly shaking. She w a s sitting alone, preoccupied, but, even observed from a distance, clearly drained and upset.

H ow are things, I asked. Well, she had left school for a m onth, had just returned. Silence. N o intim acy or eager confidence. I asked over and over: w h y ? w hat had happened? Slow ly, terribly, the sto ry cam e out. A man had attem pted to rape h er on the college cam pus w h ere she lived. She k n ew the m an, had gone to the police, to the president o f the college. She had m oved o ff cam pus, in fear. Had the police found the m an? No, they had made no attem pt to. T h e y had treated her w ith utter contem pt. A nd w h at had the president o f the college, a w om an, done? Well, she had said that publicity w ould not be "good

for the co llege. " Entirely underm ined by the callous indifference of those w h o w ere supposed to help and protect her, she had left school, to recover as best she could. A n d the w o rst o f it, she said, w as that people w ould just look righ t th ro u gh her. W ell, at least he didn't rape you, th ey said, as if, then, no th in g had really happened. She did not k n o w w h ere the m an w as. She w as hoping d esperately that he had left the area. In her mind, she took a gu n and w e n t to find him and shot him. O v e r and over. She could not quiet h erself, or study, or concentrate, or recover. She k n e w she w a s not safe a n y w h ere. Sh e th o u g h t she m ight leave school, but w h e re w o u ld she g o and w h a t w ould she do? A n d h o w w ould she ev er regain h er self-confidence or sense o f w ell-being? A nd h o w w ou ld she ev er contain o r discipline her an ger at the assault and then the betrayal by nearly e v ery o n e?

In R ochester, the trial o f fo u r fem inists fo r allegedly breaking a w in d o w w as postponed, d raggin g out the ordeal m ore m onths. In a small N e w England to w n , one y o u n g w o m an quaked and raged and tried to do sim ple things: drink co ffee, study, fo rget. A nd so m ew h ere, one aspiring rapist w ith n oth ing to fear from the law o r an yon e is doing w h o k n o w s w h a t.

Biological Superiority: The World's Most Dangerous and Deadly Idea 1977

One of the slurs constantly used against me by women writing in behalf of pornography under the flag of feminism in misogynist media is that I endorse a primitive biological determinism. W om an H atin g (1974 ) clearly repudiates any biological determinism; so does O u r Blood (1976), especially " The Root Cause.� So does this piece, published twice, in 1978 in H eresies and in 1979 in B ro ad sh eet. H eresies was widely read in the Women's Movement in 1978. The event described in this piece, which occurred in 1977, was fairly notorious, and so my position on biological determinism-1 am against it-is generally known in the Womens Movement. One problem is that this essay, like others in this book, has no cultural presence: no one has to know about it or take it into account to appear less than ignorant; no one will be held accountable for ignoring it. Usually critics and political adversaries have to reckon with the published work of male writers whom they wish to malign. No such rules protect girls. One pro-pornography “feminist" published an article in which she said I was anti-abortion, this in the face of decades of work for abortion rights and membership in many pro-choice groups. No one even checked her allegation; the periodical would not publish a retraction. One s published work counts as nothing, and so do years of one's political life.

1 All who are not of good race in this world are chaff.

Hitler, Mein Kampf* It would be lunacy to try to estimate the value of man according to his race, thus declaring war on the Marxist idea that men are equal, unless we are

d e te rm in e d

to

d raw

th e

u ltim a te

co n seq u en ces.

And

th e

u ltim a te

c o n s e q u e n c e o f r e c o g n iz in g th e im p o r ta n c e o f b lo o d — th a t is, o f th e racial fo u n d a tio n

in g e n e r a l— is th e t r a n s fe r e n c e o f th is e s tim a tio n

to th e

in d iv id u a l p e rso n .

H itle r , M ein Kam pf2

H

is s e s

And

W

at me: slut, bisexual, she fucks m en. spoken, I had been trem bling, m ore

o m e n s h o u t in g

before

I had

afraid to speak than I had e v e r been. A nd, in a room of 200 sister lesbians, as a n g ry as I h ave ev er been. "A re you a bisexu al? " som e w o m an scream ed o ver the pandem onium , the hisses and sh o u ts m erging into a raging noise. I ' m a Jew , " I an sw ered ; then, a pause, "and a lesbian, and a w o m a n . " A nd a cow ard . Jew w a s en ou g h . In that room , Jew w a s w h a t m attered. In that room , to a n sw er the qu estion " D o you still fu ck m en?" w ith a No, as I did, w as to betray m y deepest convictions. All o f m y life, I h ave hated the proscribers, th ose w h o en fo rce sexual co n form ity. In a n sw erin g, I had given in to the inquisitors, and I felt asham ed. It hum iliated m e to see m yself then: one w h o resists the en fo rcers o u t th ere w ith m ilitancy, but g ives in w ith o u t resistance to the en fo rcers am o n g us.

T h e ev en t w as a panel on "Lesbianism as a Personal Politic" that took place in N e w Y o rk C ity , Lesbian Pride W eek 19 7 7. A selfproclaim ed lesbian separatist had spoken. A m idst the g en erally accurate description o f m ale crim es against w o m e n cam e this ideological rot, articulated o f late w ith increasing freq u en cy in fem inist circles: w o m en and m en are distinct species o r races (the w o rd s are used interchangeably); m en are biologically in ferior to w om en ; m ale violence is a biological inevitability; to elim inate it, on e m u st elim inate the species/race itself (m eans stated on this particular evening: developing p arth en ogen esis as a viable rep rod u ctive reality); in elim inating the biologically in ferio r species/race M an , th e n e w U bermensch

W om on

(prophetically fo resh a d o w ed by the lesbian

separatist* herself) will have the earth ly dom inion that is h er tru e SuperW om on's ideology is distinguished from lesbian separatism in general (that is, lesbians organizing politically and/or culturally in exclusively fem ale groups) by tw o articles o f dogm a. (1) a refusal to have anyth in g to do w ith w om en w h o have anyth in g to do w ith males, often including w om en w ith male children and (2) the absolute belief in the biological superiority of w om en.

biological destiny. We are left to infer that the society of her creation will be good because she is good, biologically good. In the interim, incipient SuperW om on will not do anything to "encourage" w om en to "collaborate" with m en— no abortion clinics or battered w om an sanctuaries will com e from her. A fte r all, she has to conserve her "en ergy" which m ust not be dissipated keeping "w eaker" w om en alive th rough reform measures.

T h e audience applauded the passages on fem ale superiority I male inferiority enthusiastically. This doctrine seem ed to be music to their ears. W as there dissent, silent, buried in the applause? W as som e of the response the spontaneous pleasure that w e all kn ow w hen, at last, the tables are turned, even for a m inute, even in im agination? O r has pow erlessness driven us mad, so that w e dream secret dream s of a final solution perfect in its simplicity, absolute in its efficacy? And will a leader som eday strike that secret chord, harness those dream s, our own

nightm are

turned

upside dow n? Is there

no

haunting,

restraining m em ory of the blood spilled, the bodies burned, the ovens filled, the peoples enslaved, by those w h o have assented th rou gh ou t history to the very sam e dem agogic logic?

In the audience, I saw w om en I like o r love, w om en not strangers to me, w om en w h o are good not because of biology but because they care about being good, sw ept along in a sea of affirm ation. I spoke out because those w om en had applauded. I spoke out too because I am a Jew w h o has studied Nazi G erm an y, and I k n o w that m any G erm an s w h o followed H itler also cared about being good, but found it easier to be good by biological definition than by act. T h o se people, w retched

in w h at th ey experienced as their o w n

unbearable

pow erlessness, becam e convinced that th ey w ere so good biologically that nothing th ey did could be bad. A s H im m ler said in 1943: W e h a v e e x te r m in a te d a b a c te riu m [Jews] b e c a u se w e did n o t w a n t in th e e n d to be in fe c te d b y th e b a c te riu m a n d d ie o f it. I w ill n o t se e so m u ch a s a sm all a rea o f sep sis a p p e a r h e r e o r g a in a hold. W h e r e v e r it m a y fo r m , w e w ill c a u te r iz e it. A ll in all, w e ca n sa y th a t w e h a v e fu lfilled th is m o st d iffic u lt d u ty f o r th e lo v e o f o u r p eop le. A n d o u r sp irit, o u r so u l, o u r c h a r a c te r h a s n o t s u ffe re d in ju ry fr o m it. 3

So I spoke, afraid. I said that I w ould not be associated w ith a m ovem en t that advocated the m ost pernicious ideology on the face of

the earth. It w as this ve ry ideology o f biological determ inism that had licensed the slau gh ter and/or en slavem en t o f virtually an y g ro u p one could nam e, including w o m en by m en. ("Use their o w n poison against th em , " on e w o m an scream ed. ) A n y w h e re one looked, it w a s this philosophy that justified atrocity. T h is w as one faith that d estroyed life w ith a m om en tu m o f its o w n .

Insults continued w ith unabated in ten sity as I spoke, but grad ually those w o m en I liked or loved, and o th ers I did not k n o w , began to question openly the philosophy th ey had been applauding and also their o w n acquiescence. Em braced by m an y w o m en on m y w a y out, I left still sickened, hum iliated by the insults, em otionally d evastated b y the abuse. T im e passes, but the violence done is not undone. It n ever is.

2 I a m to ld th a t I a m a se x ist! I do b e lie v e th a t th e d iffe r e n c e s b e t w e e n th e s e x e s a re o u r m o s t p re c io u s h e r ita g e , e v e n t h o u g h t h e y m a k e w o m e n s u p e r io r in th e w a y s th a t m a t t e r m o st.

G e o r g e G ild e r , Sexual Suicide4 P e r h a p s th is fe m a le w is d o m c o m e s fr o m r e s ig n a tio n to th e r e a lity o f m a le a g g r e s s io n ; m o re lik e ly it is a h a r m o n ic o f th e w o m a n s k n o w le d g e th a t u ltim a te ly s h e is th e o n e w h o m a tte r s . A s a r e s u lt, w h ile th e r e a re m o r e b rillian t m e n th a n b rillia n t w o m e n , th e r e a r e m o r e g o o d w o m e n th a n g o o d m en.

S te v e n G o ld b e r g , T he Inevitability of Patriarchy5

A s a class (not necessarily as individuals), w e can bear children. From this, according to m ale-suprem acist ideology, all o u r o th e r a ttrib u tes and potentialities are derived. O n the pedestal, im m obile like w a x e n statu es, or in the g u tter, failed icons m ired in shit, w e are exalted or degraded because o u r biological traits are w h a t th ey are. C itin g gen es, genitals, D N A , p attern -releasin g sm ells, biogram s, h o rm o n es, or w h a te v e r is in vo g u e , m ale su prem acists m ake their case w h ich is, in essence, that w e are biologically too good, too bad, o r too d ifferen t to do a n yth in g o th e r than reproduce and serve m en sexu ally and dom estically.

T h e n e w est variation s on this d istressin gly ancient th em e cen ter on h o rm o n es and D N A : m en are biologically aggressive; th eir fetal

brains w ere aw ash in androgen; their D N A , in order to perpetuate itself, hurls them into m urder and rape; in w om en, pacifism is horm onal and addiction to birth is molecular. Since in Darwinian term s (interpreted to conform to the narrow social self-interest of men), survival o f the fittest m eans the trium ph of the m ost aggressive hum an beings, men are and alw ays will be superior to w om en in term s o f their ability to protect and extend their ow n authority. T h erefo re w om en, being "w eaker" (less aggressive), will alw ays be at the m ercy o f men. T h a t this theory o f the social ascendancy o f the fittest consigns us to eternal indignity and, applied to race, conjures up Hitler's identical view of evolutionary struggle m ust not unduly trouble us. "B y current th eory, " w rites Edward O .

W ilson reassuringly in Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, a bible of genetic justification favoring

for slaughter, "genocide or genosorption

strongly

the aggressor need take place only once every few

generations to direct evolution. "6

3 I h a v e told y o u th e v e r y lo w o p in io n in w h ic h y o u [w o m en ] w e r e held b y M r O s c a r B ro w n in g . I h a v e in dicated w h a t N a p o le o n o n c e th o u g h t o f y o u and w h a t M u sso lin i th in k s n o w . T h e n , in case a n y o f y o u a sp ire to fictio n , I h a v e cop ied o u t fo r y o u r b e n e fit th e a d v ic e o f th e critic a b o u t c o u r a g e o u s ly a c k n o w le d g in g th e lim itatio n s o f y o u r se x . I h a v e r e fe r re d to P r o fe s s o r X an d g iv e n p ro m in e n c e to his s ta te m e n t th a t w o m e n a re in te lle ctu a lly , m o ra lly and p h y sica lly in fe rio r to m e n . . . and h e r e is a final w a r n i n g . . . M r John L a n g d o n D a v ie s w a rn s w o m e n " th a t w h e n c h ild re n c e a se to be a lto g e th e r d esirab le, w o m e n c e a se to be a lto g e t h e r n e c e s s a r y . " I h o p e y o u w ill m a k e n o te o f it.

V ir g in ia W o o lf, A Room of O n e s O w n 7

In considering male intellectual and scientific argum entation in conjunction w ith male history, one is forced to conclude that m en as a class are m oral cretins. T h e vital question is: are w e to accept their w orld view o f a m oral polarity that is biologically fixed, genetically or horm onally or genitally (or w h a tever organ or secretion o r m olecular particle they scapegoat next) absolute; or does o u r o w n historical experience of social deprivation and injustice teach us that to be free

in a just w orld w e will have to d estroy the p ow er, the d ignity, the efficacy of this one idea above all o th ers?

R ecently, m ore and m ore fem inists h ave been advocating social, spiritual, and m ythological m odels that are fem ale-suprem acist and/or m atriarchal. T o m e, this advocacy signifies a basic co n fo rm ity to the ten ets o f biological determ inism that underpin the m ale social system . Pulled tow ard an ideology based on the m oral and social significance o f a distinct fem ale biology because o f its em otional and philosophical fam iliarity, d ra w n to the spiritual d ignity inh eren t in a "fem ale principle" (essentially as defined by m en), o f cou rse unable to abandon by will or im pulse a lifelong and centuries-old com m itm en t to childbearing as the fem ale creative act, w o m en h ave increasingly tried to transform the v e ry ideology that has enslaved us into a dynam ic, religious, psychologically com pelling celebration o f fem ale biological

potential.

T h is

attem pted

tran sfo rm atio n

m ay

h ave

survival valu e— that is, the w o rsh ip o f o u r procreative capacity as pow er

m ay tem porarily stay the m ale-suprem acist hand th at cradles

the test tube. B u t the price w e pay is that w e becom e carriers of the disease w e m ust cure. It is no accident that in the ancient m atriarchies m en w e re castrated, sacrificially slau gh tered, and excluded from public fo rm s of pow er; nor is it an accident that som e fem ale suprem acists n o w believe m en to be a distinct and in ferior species or race. W h erever p o w er is accessible or bodily in tegrity honored on the basis o f biological attrib ute, system atized cru elty perm eates the society and m u rd er and m utilation co n tam in ate it. W e will not be d ifferen t.

It is sham efu lly easy fo r us to en joy o u r o w n fantasies o f biological om n ipoten ce w h ile despising m en fo r en jo yin g the reality o f theirs.

A nd it is d an gero u s— because genocide begins, h o w e v e r im probably, in the conviction that classes o f biological distinction indisputably sanction social and political discrim ination. W e, w h o h ave been d evastated by the concrete co n sequ en ces o f this idea, still w a n t to put our

faith

in

it.

N o th in g

o ffe rs

m ore

p ro o f— sad,

irrefu table

p ro o f— that w e are m ore like m en than eith er th ey o r w e care to believe.

Notes 1. A d o lf H itler, Mein Kampf, tran s. R alph M a n h e im (B o sto n : H o u g h to n

1962), p. 296.

2. Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 442.

3. Jerem y N o a k e s and G e o ff r e y P rid h am , ed., Documents on Nazism 1919-1945 (N e w Y o rk : T h e V ik in g P ress, 1975), p. 493.

4. G e o r g e G ild e r, Sexual Suicide ( N e w Y o rk : Q u a d r a n g le , 1973), v.

5. Steven Goldberg, The Inevitability of Patriarchy (New.York: William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1973), p. 228.

M ifflin C o m p a n y ,

6. E d w a rd O . W ilso n , Sociobiology: The New Synthesis (C a m b rid g e , M ass.: T h e

1975), p. 573.

7. V irg in ia W o o lf, A Room of One's Own ( N e w Y o rk : H a rc o u rt, B race and W orld , Inc., 1957), pp. 115-16.

B elk n a p P ress o f H a rv a rd U n iv e r s ity P ress,

Sexual Economics: The Terrible Truth

This was given as a speech to women at Harper & Row, the original publishers of O u r Blood. I refer to it in the preface to O u r Blood in this volume: men in suits took notes and my goose was cooked. Later, M s. published an "edited" version. This is the original text. I was very pleased to be asked by the women employees at Harper & Row to speak on a day they had organized in behalf of women workers. Harper & Row was, at the time, the only unionized publisher in New York, and in addition there was a women's group. Most workers in publishing are women, low paid with no power. Organized with lawyers and money to defend the speech rights of pornographers, publishers do not allow those who work for them to organize as workers or as women; nor do they pay any attention to the rights of writers to economic dignity or creative integrity.

Publishing is a stinking, sick industry in the United States. The low-paid editors and clerical workers who listened to this speech had a lot in common with the woman who wrote it: that is what the essay is about. I thank the women of Harper & Row for inviting me in.

I

n W o m e n a n d E c o n o m i c s (first published in 1898), C h a rlo tte Perkins G ilm an w ro te , " T h e fem ale o f g en u s h om o is econom ically

dependent on th e m ale. H e is her food su p p ly. " 1 M en are o u r food supply, w h e th e r w e are m others, h o u sew iv es, prostitu tes, w o rk e rs in ind u stry, clerical w o rk ers, o r in the professions. M en are o u r food supply w h e th e r w e are h eterosexu al or lesbian, p rom iscu o u s or celibate, w h a te v e r o u r racial, ethnic, o r m ale-defined class identities.

M en are o u r food supply w h e th e r w e w o r k fo r love or fo r m on ey.

M en are our food supply w h eth er w e live in capitalist countries w h ere men control industry, agriculture, and the state, or in socialist countries w h ere men control industry, agriculture, and the state.

W om en know that material survival and well-being derive from men, w h eth er

those

men

are

fathers,

husbands,

tricks,

forem en,

em ployers, or govern m ent officials. People say that the w a y to a man's heart is through his stom ach, but it is w om en w h o give their hearts to ward off hunger.

Under the m ale-suprem acist system that n o w blights our planet, w om en are defined first by our reproductive capacities. W e produce babies. We are the first producers of the first product. A product is that which is made by hum an labor. O u r labor is the first labor, and w e are the first laborers. Even though in actuality not all w om en can produce babies, all w om en are defined as the producers o f babies.

T h at is w h y radical fem inists regard w om en as a class of persons w h o have in com m on the sam e relationship to production (reproduction).

W e labor and produce babies. T h e raw m aterials out of w hich babies are form ed are the m other's flesh and blood, the nutrients w hich nourish her, the very stu ff of her o w n physical existence. An em bryo literally feeds from and is form ed out of the m other's body. It is as if the em bryo w ere knit, stitch by stitch, from her flesh and blood.

O n ce the baby is born, this product of the m other's labor, made from the raw materials of her body, does not belong to her. It belongs to a man. It belongs to one w h o did not and cannot produce it. This o w nership is system atized in law, theology, and national m ores; it is sanctioned by the state, sanctified in art and philosophy, and endorsed by m en o f all political persuasions. A baby w h o is not ow ned by a man does not have a legitim ate civil existence.

T h e relationship betw een the w om an w h o labors and produces and the man w h o o w n s the product is at once sexual and econom ic. In reproduction, sex and econom ics cannot be separated nor can th ey be distinguished from each other. T h e w om an 's m aterial reality is determ ined by a sexual characteristic, a capacity for reproduction.

T h e man takes a body that is not his, claims it, sow s his so-called seed, reaps a h arvest— he colonializes a fem ale body, robs it o f its natural resources, controls it, uses it, depletes it as he w ishes, denies it freedom and self-determ ination so that he can continue to plunder it,

m oves on at will to conqu er o th er land w hich appears m ore verdant and alluring. Radical fem inists call this exclu sively male beh avior "phallic im perialism " and see in it the origins of all o th er fo rm s of im perialism .

Fucking is the m eans by w hich the m ale colonializes the fem ale, w h e th e r or not the intended goal is im pregnation (reproduction).

Fucking authen ticates m arriage and, in or o ut of m arriage, it is regarded as an act o f possession. T h e possessor is the one w ith a phallus; the possessed is the one w ith o u t a phallus. Society in both capitalist and socialist cou n tries (including C h in a) is organized so as to g u aran tee the im perial right o f each m an to possess, to fuck, at least one w om an .

In fuckin g, as in reproduction, sex and econom ics are inextricably joined. In m ale-suprem acist cu ltu res, w o m en are believed to em body carnality; w o m en are sex. A m an w a n ts w h a t a w o m an h as— sex. H e can steal it (rape), persuade her to g iv e it a w a y (seduction), rent it (prostitution), lease it o ver the long term (m arriage in the U nited States), or o w n it o u trigh t (m arriage in m ost societies). A m an can do som e or all o f the above, o ver and o ver again.

A s Phyllis C h esle r and Em ily Jane G o o d m an w r o te in W omen, M oney, and Power: "It is an ancient dram a, a m iracle o f cu rre n cy — this bu yin g o f w o m e n —

Being b o u gh t, especially fo r a high price, o r fo r a

lifetim e, is exactly h o w m ost w o m en learn w h a t th e y are w o rth . In a m on ey culture, their self-kn ow led ge can be v e ry ex a ct. "2 T h e act o f rape establishes the nadir in fem ale w o rth lessn ess. Rape signifies that the individual victim and all w o m en h ave no d ignity, no p o w er, no individuality, no real safety. Rape signifies that th e individual victim and all w o m en are interchangeable, "all the sam e in the dark. " Rape signifies that a n y w o m an , no m atter h o w uppity she has becom e, can be reduced by force or intim idation to the lo w est com m on d en o m in ato r— a free piece o f ass, th ere fo r the taking.

Seduction is o ften difficult to d istin gu ish fro m rape. In seduction, the rapist bo th ers to bu y a bottle o f w in e. Som e ex p en d itu re of m on ey is made to en cou rage the w o m an into sexu al su rren d er, th ou gh m an y fo rm s o f coercion are typically used in sedu ction s to m ake certain that the seducer's o u tlay o f tim e and m o n ey will not be in vain. Seduction o ften m eans to a w o m a n that she has w o rth because her value to a m an (the o n ly real criterion o f fem ale w o r th in

a m ale-suprem acist culture) can be m easured in w ine, food, and oth er m aterial attentions.

In prostitution, a w om an is paid o u tright for her sexual services. In m ale-suprem acist cultures (except for a fe w socialist countries w h ere serious efforts have been made to end the exploited sexual labor of w om en as prostitutes), prostitution is the one profession genuinely and w hole-heartedly open to w om en. H ard-w orking prostitutes earn enorm ous gross sum s o f m on ey (compared to gross sum s typically earned by other w om en), but they do not go on to becom e financiers or founders o f universities. Instead, their m oney goes to m en, because men control, profit from , and perpetuate fem ale prostitution.

T he men their m oney goes to are pimps, racketeers, law yers, police, and the like, all of w hom , because they are m en and not w om en, can turn that m oney into m ore m oney, social status, and influence. T h e prostitute herself is m arked w ith a scarlet "W "— stigm atized as w h ore,

ostracized

as

w hore,

exiled

as

w h o re

into

a

world

circum scribed by organized crim e, narcotics, and the notorious brutality of pimps. T h e p ro stitu tes u tterly degraded social status functions to punish h er for daring to m ake m on ey at all. T h e abuse that accrues to her prevents her from translating m on ey into dignity o r self-determ ination; it serves to keep her in her place, fem ale, cunt, at the m ercy of the men w h o profit from h er flesh. Also, as K ate M illett w ro te in The Prostitution Papers, "the w h o re is there to sh o w the rest of us h o w lucky w e are, h o w favored o f our lords, h o w m uch w orse it could go for u s. "3 For that lesson to be vivid, the prostitute's m oney cannot be allowed to bring w ith it self-esteem , honor, or power.

In m arriage, male ow nership of a w o m an 's body and labor (reproductive, carnal, and domestic) is sanctified by god and/or state.

In m arriage, a man acquires legal, exclusive right o f carnal access to a w om an, w h o is ever after k n o w n as "his w ife . " "H is w ife" is the h ighest em bodim ent o f fem ale w o rth in a m ale-suprem acist society.

"His w ife " is the exem plary fem ale, and for a ve ry good reason: in a w orld w ith no viable sexual-econom ic options for the fem ale, "his w ife " has struck the best possible bargain. She has sold h erself (or, still in m any places, has been sold) not only fo r econom ic support from one man, w hich m ay or m ay not be forthcom ing, but also for protection— protection from being raped, seduced, o r forced to

prostitution by o ther m en, protection from the dan gers of being fem ale prey in a w orld of male predators. T his protection often is not w o rth

v e ry

m uch,

since

w ife-beatin g

and

sexual

assault

are

com m onplace in m arriage.

In m arriage, a w om an not only provides sex for the male; she also cleans his house. She does h o u sew o rk w h e th e r or not she also w o rk s for a w age outside the house. She does h o u sew o rk w h e th e r she lives in a capitalist or a socialist cou n try. She does h o u se w o rk because she is a w om an , and h o u sew o rk is stigm atized as w o m en 's w ork. N ot coincidentally, it is also the m ost m enial, isolating, repetitious, and invisible w o rk there is. (W hen the m an is rich his w ife does not clean the house. Instead, she is turned into an orn am en t and used as a sym bol o f his w ealth. T h e situation o f the lady is a bizarre variation on a consistently cruel th em e. ) A ccording to co n tem p o rary socialist th eory, the incarceration of w o m en in the hom e as unpaid dom estics is the distinctive featu re of w o m en 's oppressed condition under capitalism . W h en w o m en do productive labor for a w a g e outside the h om e und er capitalism , th ey are view ed by socialists as d ou bly exploited — exploited first as w o rk e rs by capitalist profiteers and exploited second as unpaid dom estics inside the hom e. In the socialist analysis, w o m en in the hom e are exploited by the "capitalist sy ste m , " not by the m en w h o profit from w o m en 's dom estic labor.

M arx him self recognized that under capitalism w o m en w e re viciously exploited, as m en w e re not, as dom estic servan ts. He th erefo re favored protective labor legislation to shield w o m en from the w o rst ravages o f industrial exploitation so th at th ey w ou ld be better able to perform their dom estic labors. Socialists since M arx h ave supported protective labor legislation fo r w o m en . T h e e ffect o f this socialist ch ivalry is to keep w o m en from being able to co m pete for jobs on the sam e term s as m en or to m atch m ale earn in g pow er.

C o n seq u en tly, reinforced

and

the role o f the w o m a n m en

are

also assured

as unpaid dom estic an

adequate

is

supply of

reproductive and carnal servants.

T h is "solu tion" to "th e w o m an q u estio n , " w h ich en tirely serves to uphold the dom inance o f m en o v e r w o m en , typifies socialist th eory and practice. In Russia, in C zech o slo v ak ia , in C h in a , h o u se w o rk is w o m en 's w o rk, and the w o m en rem ain exploited as dom estics. T h e

ideology that justifies this entrenched abuse is accepted as selfevident truth in socialist and capitalist countries alike: w om en are defined first as the class of persons w ho reproduce and so, it is postulated, there is a "natural division of labor in the fam ily" w hich is w h y "the man devotes him self m ore intensively to his w ork, and perhaps to public activity or self-im provem ent connected with his job or his function, while the w om an concentrates on the children and the household. "4 T h e notion that capitalism, instead o f system atized male suprem acy from w hich all m en profit, is the source of w o m e n s m isery— even w hen that m isery is n arro w ly defined as exploited dom estic labor w ith no reference to the brutal sexual abuses w hich characterize w o m e n s oppressed condition— is not borne out by that final authenticator, history.

E veryw h ere, then, the fem ale is kept in captivity by the male, denied self-determ ination so that he can control her reproductive functions, fuck her at will, and

have his house cleaned (or

ornam ented). And everyw h ere, w h en the fem ale leaves the house to w ork for wages, she finds that she carries h er inferior and servile status w ith her.

T h e inferior status o f w om en is maintained in the labor m arket in both capitalist and socialist countries in fo u r m utually reinforcing w ays: (1) Women are paid lower wages than men for doing the same work. In the United

States,

the

m ale-fem ale w age

differential has actually

increased in the last ten years, despite the fact that equal pay fo r equal w o rk

has been

required by law. In industrialized com m unist

countries, inequities in male and fem ale w ages w ere h u ge as late as 1970 — a staggering fact since the law has required equal pay fo r equal w o rk in the Soviet Union since 1936 and in the Eastern-bloc countries since the late 1940s.

(2) Women are systematically excluded from work of high status, concrete power, and high financial reward. Stran gely, in C hina, w h ere w om en allegedly hold up half the sky, the g overn m en t is o verw h elm in gly male; so too in the Soviet Union, H un gary, Algeria. In all socialist countries, w om en do m ost o f the low-skilled, poorly paid w ork; w o m en are not to be found in significant num bers in the upper echelons (and there are upper echelons) of industry, agriculture, education, or culture. T h e typical situation o f w om en in socialist

countries w as described by M agdalena Sokolow ska, a Polish expert on w om en 's em ploym ent in that cou ntry: "A s long as w o m en w orked in factories and in the fields it didn't bother anyon e ve ry m uch. A s soon as they started to learn skills and to ask for the sam e m on ey for the sam e w ork, m en began to w o rry about [w om ens] health, their nerves, to claim that em ploym ent doesn't agree w ith them , and that they are neglecting the fam ily. "5 O f course, capitalist m ales have identical w o rries and so, in capitalist countries, w o m en are also denied access to high rank, au th o rity, and pow er.

(3) Women are consigned to the lowest ranks within a field, no matter what the field. In the United States, fo r instance, doctors, law yers, and full p rofessors are male w hile nurses, legal secretaries, and research assistants are fem ale. Even w h en a profession is com posed alm ost en tirely o f w o m en , as are library science (librarians) in the United States and m edicine (doctors) in the Soviet U nion, the top positions in those professions are held by m en.

(4) When women enter any industry, job, or profession in great numbers, the field itself becomes feminized, that is, it acquires the low status of the fem ale.

W om en are able to en ter a field in large n u m bers because it is lo w paid relative to o th er areas w h e re m en can find em ploym ent. In the U nited States, fo r instance, clerical w o rk is a recen tly fem inized field. M ale clerical w o rkers, w h o in 1949 earned an a verage of $ 32 13 a year com pared to $2255 for w o m en , m oved o u t o f the field as w o m en m oved in— to the lo w er fem ale salaries, w h ich w e re se ve n ty percent o f the m ale w age. W ith the influx o f w o m en doing m enial w o rk for menial w ages, clerical w o rk becam e w o m en 's w o r k — lo w paid and dead-ended. In 1962, fem ale clerical w o rk e rs earned sixty-n in e percent o f the m ale w age; in 1970, th ey earned six ty -fo u r percent of the m ale w age; and in 1973, th ey earned only sixty-o n e percent o f the m ale w age.

In the Soviet U nion and C zech o slovakia, d octorin g, that exalted profession in the W est, has becom e fem inized. W om en becam e doctors in these cou n tries because the w o rk w a s lo w paid com pared to m anual labor available to m en. T o d a y in those co u n tries fem ale physicians

are

m undane

service

w o rk e rs

w h o se

low

pay

is

appropriate because w o m en need not be w ell paid. M ale m edical professionals are high-statu s, h igh ly paid research scientists and su rgeon s.

In g e n e ra l then, w om en do the low est w o rk of the society w h a tever that low est w o rk is perceived to be; and w h en w om en are the prim ary w orkers in a field, the field itself takes on the fem ales' low status. T h erefore, it is false to think that the inferior status o f w om en will dissolve w h en w om en do productive labor or en ter freely into high status professions. W hen w om en en ter any field in great num bers, the status of the field itself is low ered. T h e m en w h o are in it leave it; the men looking for w o rk will not en ter it. W hen men leave a field, they take its prestige w ith them ; w h en men en ter a field, they bring prestige to it. In this w ay, the subordination o f w om en to men is perpetuated even w hen w om en w o rk fo r a w age and no m atter w hat w o rk w om en do. 6 W hen w e dare to look at these em bittering sexual-econom ic realities, it is as if w e look into M edusa's eyes. We look at her and see ourselves; w e see our condition and it is m onstrous; w e see our rage and anguish in her hideous face and, terrified to becom e her, w e turn instead to stone. Then, for solace and out o f fear, w e turn to look elsew h ere— a n y w h ere— to D em ocrats, to socialists, to union leaders, to w orkin g m en, to gay men, or to a host of authoritarian father figures w h o prom ise freedom in conform ity and peace in selfdelusion.

But there will be no freedom or peace until we, w om en, are free to determ ine for ourselves the integrity and boundaries o f our ow n bodies, the uses to which w e will put o u r o w n bodies— that is, until w e have absolute reproductive freedom and until the crim es o f sexual violence com m itted against us by m en are ended.

If these revolutionary necessities are not o u r first priority, w e will be led d ow n the garden path and into the sunset by seducers and pimps o f all persuasions w h o will do w h at th ey have alw ays d o n e— pillage our bodies, steal our labor, and bu ry us in unm arked graves under the w eeds of centuries o f contem pt.

Notes 1. Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Women and Economics, ed. Carl D^gler (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1966), p. 22.

2. P h y llis C h e s le r a n d E m ily Jane G o o d m a n , Women, Money, and Power ( N e w Y o rk : W illiam M o r r o w a n d C o m p a n y , Inc.,

1976), p. 19.

3. Kate Mill ett, The Prostitution Papers: A Candid Dialogue (New York-: Avon Books, 1973), p. 87.

4. Radoslav Selucky, "Emancipation or Equality?" Uterami noviny, March 6, 1965, cited by Hilda Scott in Does Socialism Liberate Women? Experiences from Eastern Europe (Boston: Beacon Press, 1974), p. 123.

5. Scott, Does Socialism liberate Women?, p. 5.

6. For data on these same processes in underdeveloped and developing countries, see Ester Boserup, Womens Role in Economic Development (New York: St. M artins Press, 1970).

Look, Dick, Look. See Jane Blow It. 1979

This was originally given as a speech at a Women s Week Conference at Smith College in Northampton, Massachusetts. There had been open warfare between those on the nominal Left, the only Left in Amerika, and feminists. Male leftists had made a strong effort to close down the annual Women s Week Conference held for students from the five colleges and universities in the area. O f course, some women were on their side. One consequence of the fight was conflict among women, a devaluing of feminism following the priorities of the men. It was a volatile audience. I tried to set an ethical and honest course. Every warning about what would happen to the Women's Movement if we caved into male pressure from the Left has come true, has happened, in my view. Local women published this speech in their own newspaper, V alley W o m en 's N ew s, and a Rochester, New York, newspaper, N ew W o m en 's T im es, with a more national audience (and now defunct) also published it.

ne o f th e

O

hazards of trying to discuss strategies for social

change is that abstractions have a nasty w ay of taking

over. O n e w ants to clarify the elem ents necessary to sustain effective radical action— or effective reform ist or remedial action. O n e ends up w ith a list of "ism s" that becom e m ore and m ore unreal each tim e one refers to them . T h is happens, for instance, w hen one m ust use a w ord like "lesbianism." T h e erotic reality, w ith ou t w hich, a fter all, the lesbian w ould not exist, is "ismed" out of the word; an intimidating collective dim ension is added to it; the experiences of lesbians and the political realities associated w ith lesbian acts and com m itm ents are increasingly obscured. W e lose o ur rootedness to the necessities that compelled us to "ism " the w ord to begin w ith. T h e w ord becom es a

code w ord, both shorthand and sym bol. W e begin to m easure o u rselves against it instead of m easurin g it against ourselves. T h e n , w e begin to use the w ord as a w eapon against oth ers, to factor out their experiences w hich so m eh o w do not qu ite w a rra n t the "ism " part o f the word: not being w e ig h ty en o u g h , being personal-not-politicalen ou gh, being too slight to deserve the gran d eu r o f a w h o le "ism . " A t this point, w e h ave lost the w ord, w e have lost ourselves, w e h ave lost o u r connectedness to o u r o w n original im pulses, m eanings, and necessities. Inevitably, then, an o th er "ism " com es along to knock o u r "ism " out o f the sphere o f legitim ate concern altogeth er, and political discourse is reduced to a w a r o f the "ism s, " to w hich "ism " indicates the g rea ter atrocity, the grea ter pain. "Ism -ism "— if you will please pardon the coining o f yet an o th er "ism "— is perhaps the m ost d estructive, and reactionary, disease o f political m ovem en ts. T y ra n n y com es from it, and so does defeat. But by the tim e a m o vem en t can be reduced to its "ism s, " it d eserves d efeat because it has been taken o ve r by an acquiescence to au th o rity

that intrinsically n egates any

possibility o f real rebellion, real creation, an infusion o f n e w valu es based on w h a t w e can learn from reality w h en w e face it unarm ed by ideological orthodoxies.

T h e purpose o f th eo ry is to clarify the w orld in w h ich w e live, h o w it w o rk s, w h y th in gs happen as th ey do. T h e purpose o f th eo ry is understanding. U nderstan din g is en ergizin g. It en erg izes to action.

W h en th eory becom es an im pedim ent to action, it is tim e to discard the th eory and return naked, that is, w ith o u t th eory, to the w orld o f reality. People becom e slaves to th eo ry because people are used to m eeting expectations th ey h ave not origin ated — to doin g w h a t th ey are told, to h avin g ev ery th in g

m apped

out, to h avin g reality

prepackaged. People can h ave an an tiau th oritarian inten tion and yet fun ction in a w a y totally con son an t w ith the dem an ds o f au th o rity.

T h e deepest stru gg le is to root ou t of us and the in stitu tion s in w h ich w e participate the requ irem en t that w e slavishly co n form . B ut an adherence to ideology, to any ideology, can giv e us th e grand illusion of freed om w h en in fact w e are being m anipulated and used by th ose w h o m the th eory serves. T h e stru g g le fo r freed om has to be a stru gg le

tow ard

in tegrity defined

in e v e ry

possible

sp here

of

reality— sexual in tegrity, econom ic in teg rity, psychological in tegrity, in tegrity o f expression , in tegrity o f faith and loyalty and heart.

A n yth in g that shortcuts us a w a y from view ing integrity as an essential goal or anything that diverts our attention from integrity as a revolutionary value serves only to reinforce the authoritarian values of the world in which w e live.

O n e m ay discover integrity in the com panionship of others, but one does not ever discover integrity by bow ing to the dem ands of peer pressure. The heavier the pressure is tow ard co n form ity— no m atter h o w lofty the proposed final goal— the m ore one m ust be suspicious of it and antagonistic to it. H istory has one consistent lesson in it: one by one, people give up w h at they kn o w to be right and true for the sake o f som ething loftier that they do not quite understand but should w ant in order to be good; soon, people are the tools o f despots and atrocities are com m itted on a grand scale. And then, it is too late. T h ere is no going back.

W om en are especially given to giving up w hat w e kn ow and feel to be right and true for the sake of others or for the sake of som ething m ore im portant than ourselves. This is because the condition in which w om en live is a colonized condition. W om en are colonized by men, in body, in mind. Defined ev eryw h ere as evil w h en w e act in our o w n self-interest, w e strive to be good by renouncing self-interest altogether.

Feminists are now threatened in every area of activity because men are trying to recolonize our m inds— minds that have been trying to be free of male control. Everyw here, w om en are confronted by the urgency of male dem ands, all of w hich are supposed to supersede in im portance the dem ands which w om en m ust make tow ard o ur ow n integrity. This story is so old that it should be tired and dead, but it is not. Feminists tell the tales over and over: h o w w om en contributed to this and that revolution and w ere sold out in the end, sent packing back to the house to clean it up after the revolutionary dust had settled, pregnant and poor; h o w w om en contributed to this and that m ovem ent for social change and w ere raped and exploited and abused, and then sent back to clean the house, pregnant and poor. But the colonized mind cannot rem em ber. T he colonized mind does not have the pride or m ilitancy o f m em ory. T h e colonized mind refuses to politicize anger or bitterness. T h e colonized mind m ust meet the dem ands o f the colonizer: devotion and good behavior, clean th ou ghts and no ugly w rath.

T h e mind stru gglin g tow ard in tegrity does not accept som eone else's version o f the sto ry o f life: this mind dem ands that life itself m ust be con fron ted , o v e r and o ver, by all w h o live it. T h e mind stru gglin g tow ard in tegrity co n fro n ts the evidence and respects experience.

O n e characteristic especially defines the colonized mind o f a w om an: she will put the experience o f m en before h er ow n; she will g ra n t a m ale life g rea ter im portance than her o w n . T h e mind stru gglin g tow ard in tegrity will fig h t fo r the significance o f h er o w n life and will not g ive up that significance fo r any reason. R ooted in the reality of h er o w n experien ce— w h ich includes all that has happened to her faced squarely and all that she has seen, heard, learned, and don e— a w o m an w h o u nderstands that in tegrity is the first necessity will find the co u rage not to defend h erself from pain. T h e colonized mind will use ideology to d efend itself from both pain and kn ow led ge.

R igh t n o w , the L eft is m aking e v e ry e ffo rt to recolonize th e m inds o f w o m en . T h is is partly because w o m e n s figh t fo r freedom dem anded a renunciation o f leftist alliances. W om en w h o w e re on the L eft w e re th ere because th ey cared passion ately fo r freedom . T h e y w e re abused by m en w h o said th at th ey too cared fo r freed om , but not for the freed om o f w o m en . W om en fou nd th e co u rage to include w o m en in e v e ry dem and fo r freed om , to m ake w o m en prim ary, to m ake w o m en essential. T h is angered the m en, but m ore im portan tly, it left them w ith o u t an abundance o f sexu al partners, en velop e fillers, o rgan izers, and dishw ash ers. It also left th em w ith o u t w o m e n to bear their (sic) children, a loss in sufferable to all m en.

For nearly a decade, w o m en

who

righ tly called th em selves

fem inists delved into w h a t is righ tly ch aracterized as sexual politics, sex as p ow er, the p o w er relationships and valu es in h eren t in sex and sexu ality as cultural and social institutions. T h e m en fretted , m oaned, had en cou n ter groups, did prim al th erap y and rebirth th era p y and w a te r therapy, ate b ro w n rice, and continu ed to seek o u t acquiescent w o m en , colonized w o m en , w h o w ou ld co n tin u e to inflate m asculine esteem

by su bservien t behavior. T h e m en also w ith d re w their

m on ey, labor, en erg y , and m oral su pport fro m the cau ses defined by w o m en as prim ary. For instance, d u rin g the 1960s, access by w o m en to safe abortion w as im portan t to leftist m en. A ccess to safe abortion m ade m ore w o m en m ore w illin g to be fucked m ore o ften by m ore

men. With a fem inist redefinition o f the im portance o f abortion— that is, w ith abortion defined as an essential com ponent of a w o m a n s right to control her ow n body, that control also including and often necessitating the use of the dreaded w ord, N o — m en became apathetic or simply changed sides. T h e y created a vacuum , w hich the organized Right lost no time in filling. W e w o n the right to legal abortion on our ow n, but the Right is n o w piece by piece taking it a w ay from us: en ter the conquering heroes, those w h o abdicated all responsibility w hen it m attered so m uch, w h o will help us now at a price. T h e price is reinvolvem ent w ith politics as they define it, an acceptance of their political priorities. For the last decade, the male Left has been the frontline of the male Right, buttressing it by strategies geared tow ard destroying fem inists. A s our right-w ing enem ies have gained in strength and arrogance, w om en have become m ore and m ore afraid— m ore and m ore afraid of crossing leftist men, more and m ore afraid of defining our priorities in our o w n terms.

W om en running scared are m ore subject to the pressure of m en on us to conform , to reenter the world of the colonized w om en. And w om en have been capitulating at an alarm ing rate. R ather than participating in the world from a w om an-defined sense of urgency, w om en have been retreating into the world o f male political discourse and priorities. Suddenly, once again, everyth in g is m ore im portant than the crim es com m itted against w om en by men. Suddenly, once again, men are golden (not tin) allies and male suprem acy, though ever so distasteful, m ust not distract us from T h e Real Issues. T h ere are w om en calling them selves fem inists though they have no particular com m itm ent to w om en as a group and no credible interest in sexual politics as such. T h ey are in the service of male "ism s, " and both they and the "ism s" are being manipulated to dissuade w om en from political, sexual, and social confrontation w ith men. So, w e have w om en insisting that capitalism is the source of male suprem acy, even though all history and contem porary reality dem onstrate clearly that the hatred o f w om en perm eates all societies regardless of their econom ic organization. We have w om en defending the porn ography pimps

on

the

basis

of

the

First

A m en d m en t— civil

libertar­

ianism — even though w om en have no viable protection derived from the First A m endm ent because w om en have no m eaningful access to media; and even w ith access would not have the econom ic m eans to

defend any claim w e m ight m ake since law yers w h o specialize in the field o f First A m en d m en t litigation cost $ 15 0 an h o u r and their fees are only a small part o f the expen se involved. W e have w o m en charm ed once again by the pacifist Left. In all these cases and m ore, w e h ave w o m en w h o m anage to defend the political priorities of men w h o continue to m anipulate and exploit them , to deny their m ost basic claim s to hum an dignity and autonom y; w e have w o m en w h o w a n t to be good in m ale term s at a n y cost to th em selves and to o th e r w om en; w e have w o m en w illing to fo rget ev ery th in g su bstan tive w e h ave learned o ver the past decade so that th ey can begin again, arm in arm , w ith m en w h o have slightly im proved their m an ners and not m uch m ore. M ore and m ore, those w h o found the stren g th to stru ggle tow ard in tegrity are reen terin g the sh ad ow y w orld o f purposeful m ale confusion: th ey are g ivin g up their o w n lives, and they will take the lives o f the rest of us w ith them if w e do not stand up to them . W ith increasing frequ en cy, these w o m e n are used by the male Left to im pugn o ur basic decency, cond em n o u r loyalty to w o m en , to sh o u t us d o w n , to slander and slu r us; and because w e too are w o m en , w e are expected to g ive in, o u r m inds are expected to collapse under the im pact o f their antagonism . I have seen too m uch o f fem ale self-delusion not to fear it m ore than an yth in g. I h ave been u nder its sw ay too o ften not to fear it m ore than an yth in g. T h o se w h o take the priorities o f m en as their o w n priorities are colonized: w e m ust nam e it to stay free o f it.

I cam e here to say on e sim ple thing: o u r h o n o r and o u r hope is in o ur ability to nam e in tegrity the essential reality of revolution; o ur fu tu re will bring that in tegrity to realization only if w e put it first; w e put it first by keeping o u r relationship to real life im m ediate and by respecting o u r capacity to understand experience ourselves, not th ro u gh the m edium o f m ale ideology, m ale interpretation , or male intellection. M ale values have devalued us: w e cann ot expect to be valued by honorin g m ale values. T h is is a contradiction w ith o u t resolution except in our obliteration.

In these next fe w years, w e are go in g to see attem p ts on e v e ry fro n t to recolonize us, to bring us back to the fold as w o m e n w h o do the dirty w o rk and spread o u r legs w h en the m en will it. W e have to k n o w and to ackn o w led ge that o u r b u tto n s can be pushed, that w e are prone to g u ilt— w hich is political in and of itself— and to fear,

w hich is entirely realistic. W e have to be brave enough to confront in ourselves the desire to be reassimilated back into the male world, to know

that

we

m ight

lie

to o urselves— especially

about

the

righteousness of male political im peratives— to get back in. W e alw ays think it is safer there. But, if w e dare to keep facing it, w e k n o w that there lies madness, there lies rape, there lies battery, there lies forced pregnancy and forced prostitution and forced mutilation, there lies m urder. If w e go back, w e cannot go forward. If w e do not go forw ard, w e will disappear.

Feminism: An Agenda

This too was a speech, given April 8, 1983, at Hamilton College in upstate New York. It was published at the invitation and by the initiative of a male student in the college literary magazine, T h e A B C 's o f R ead in g , in 1984. I remember flying up in a plane that was more like a tin can, just me and the pilot. I remember the semicircle of hundreds of young faces. That night, fraternity boys tried to break into the rooms I was staying in on campus in a generally deserted building.

There were two immovable, institutional doors between me and them. I couldn't get an outside line and the switchboard didn't answer to get security. I waited.

They went away.

I still think that prostitution must be decriminalized, as I say in this speech; but, increasingly, I think there must be simple, straightforward, enforced criminal laws against exploiting women in commercial sexual transactions. The exploiter— pimp or john— needs to be recognized and treated as a real criminal, much as the batterer now is.

I

re p rese n t th e

w ith

m orbid side of the w o m en 's m ovem en t. I deal

the shit, the real shit. Robin M organ calls it "atrocity

w o rk . " A nd that's p retty m uch w h a t it is.

I deal w ith w h a t happens to w o m en in the norm al co u rse of w o m en 's lives all o v e r this planet: the norm al stu ff that is abusive, crim inal, vio latin g— the point being that it is considered normal by the society at large. It is so system atic that it appears that w o m en are not being abused w h en these com m onplace th in gs happen to w o m en because th ese abuses are so com m onplace.

Because w om en are everyw h ere, and because, as Shulam ith Firestone said, a sex class is invisible because everyo n e takes it to be nature, and because m any of the abuses that w om en system atically su ffer are called sex, and because w om en are socialized in a w ay to m ake us indifferent to the plight o f o th er w om en, and because there are no institutional m eans of redress for the crim es com m itted against us, fem inism som etim es seem s as if a grou p o f w om en are standing in front of a tidal w ave w ith one hand up saying: "Stop. " Th at is w h y people say, "Well, it's hopeless. " And from "it's hopeless, " people say: "Well, it's life."

T h e stance o f the w om en's m ovem ent is that it is not "just life. " It is politics; it is history; it is power; it is econom ics; it is institutional modes of social organization: it is not "just life." And that applies to all of it: the

sexual abuse, the econom ic degradation, the "natural"

relationship betw een w om en and children (to paraphrase Firestone again: w om en and children are not united by biology, w e are united by politics, a shared powerlessness; I think this is true).

T h e w om en's m ovem ent is like o th er political m ovem ents in one im portant w ay. Every political m ovem ent is com m itted to the belief that there are certain kinds of pain that people should not have to endure. T h ey are unnecessary. T h ey are gratuitous. T h e y are not part of the G od-given order. T h ey are not biologically inevitable.

T h e y are acts o f hum an will. T h ey are acts done by som e hum an beings to o th er hum an beings.

If you believe that God made w om en to be subm issive and inferior, then there is alm ost nothing that fem inism can say to you about you r place in society. A political m ovem ent against the will o f G od does not sound like a very reasonable form o f organizing. And in fact frequ en tly a m isogynist will say: "Y o u r argu m ent isn't w ith me. It's w ith G o d . " And w e say: "Well, since you're created in His im age, you 're the best w e can do. So stand there and let's discuss this. Y ou represent Him, you do that all the tim e a n y w a y . " A n o th er

mode

of

argum ent

about

w om en's

inferiority— a

pervasive m ode— has to do w ith biology. T h ere are a lot of w a ys to address this issue. It is, in a certain sense, the basic issue of w o m e n 's rights, of w h at w om en's rights should be: because there is a question as to w h a t rights w e w om en should have. If it w ere a com m on supposition that w e should enjoy the sam e rights as m en and that our

lives had the sam e w o rth , w e w ould be living in a v e ry d ifferen t w orld. T h ere is not that supposition. T h ere is not that prem ise. So in trying to discuss w h a t rights w o m en should have, m any people refer to biology, and th ey do so in a m yriad o f w ays. For instance, th ey m ay find— th ey g o to great g reat len gths to find— variou s craw lin g things that behave in certain specified w a y s and th ey say: "L ook at that!

Seven million years ago you w e re related to th a t. " T h is is an abuse of C h a rles D a rw in to w hich an y literate person should object; on e should cringe to see such form idable theoretical w o rk used in such a vile w ay. But these sam e people point to prim ates, fish, th ey point to an yth in g that m oves, an yth in g that is actually alive, an yth in g that th ey can find. A nd th ey tell us that w e should infer o u r righ ts from the behaviors o f w h a te v e r th ey are pointing to. Frequently th e y point to things that aren't alive, that are on ly postulated to have been alive at som e previous m om ent in prehistory. O n e o u tstan d in g exam p le is the cichlid, w hich is m y personal favorite. It is a prehistoric fish — or, to be m ore precise, som e m en thin k it was a prehistoric fish. T h e follow ers o f K onrad L o ren z— and these are scientists, o k a y ? — say that the m ale cichlid could not m ate unless his partn er d em on strated awe. N o w is this a projection o r is t h i s .. . a fish? K a te M illett w ond ered in Sexual Politics h o w a fish d em on strates aw e. People w h o look to o th er anim als (I will concede that w e are also anim als) to find reasons w h y w o m en , hu m an w o m en , should be subordin ate jum p from

species to species w ith alarm ing d ex terity and ign ore all

in form ation that contradicts their ideological point of view . N o w , this is a quite hu m an failing, and that is the point: it is a hu m an failing. O n e need not postulate th at a chim pan zee o r an insect has the sam e failing to locate som eth in g hum an.

T h e w o m en 's m o vem en t is concern ed first o f all w ith this virtually m etaphysical prem ise that w o m en are biologically inferior. I don't k n o w h o w m an y tim es in y o u r o w n lives you h a ve experienced the sense that you w e re being treated in a certain w a y because those around you considered y o u to be biologically inferior to them . I suspect that if you trace backw ards, m an y of the hum iliating ev en ts o f y o u r lives— and I am talking to the w o m en in this ro o m — w ou ld have at their base a co m m itm en t on the part o f th e person w h o created the hum iliation that you d eserved to be treated in the w a y in w h ich you w ere treated because y o u w e re a w o m an . T h is m eans that

there is som e sense in w hich you are biologically not entitled to the sam e dignity and the sam e hum an respect to w hich m en are entitled.

T h is belief in the biological inferiority o f w om en is, o f course, not limited to m en. N ot only men have this belief. W om en are raised to believe this sam e thing about ourselves, and m any o f us do. T h is belief is really the underpinning of the sexual system in w hich w e live, w h eth er you as an individual en coun ter it directly or indirectly. It is also the justification for m ost o f the system atic sexual assault that w om en experience.

I am going to talk a lot today about sexual assault, but first I w ant to m ake a generalization about the w o m e n s m ovem ent and its relationship to know ledge— its purpose, in fact. T h e w o m e n s m ovem ent is not a n arrow ly political m ovem ent. It is not only an electoral m ovem ent. It is not only a reform m ovem ent, h o w e v er you understand the w ord reform , because w hen you are dealing w ith a presum ption of biological inferiority or G od -given inferiority, there is no reform that addresses that question. T h ere is no w a y to change the status of w om en in any society w ith o u t dealing w ith basic metaphysical assum ptions about the nature of wom en: w h a t w e are, w h at w e w ant, w h at w e have a right to, w h a t o ur bodies are for, and especially to w hom o ur bodies belong. T h e w o m e n s m ovem ent is a m ovem ent for know ledge, tow ard know ledge. I com e here to a college to speak to you, and m any of you are students here, and you are here for a lot o f different reasons, personal reasons; but you are also here for social reasons. Y ou are sent to college to learn h o w to becom e adults in this society, adults o f a certain class, adults o f a certain type, adults w h o will fit into a certain place. And the w om en here are here in part to be taught h o w to be w om en. A s far back as you can go, w h en you w ere first taken to kindergarten, that is w h y you w ere taken there. A nd the same thing is tru e fo r the men. If w h a t th ey w anted to teach you is not sealed, if it isn't fixed, if anyth in g is loose and rattling around, this is their last chance to fix it. M ost of the tim e they succeed. Y o u get fixed. And yet these institutions are supposed to exist so that you can acquire know ledge. T h e w om en's m ovem ent, like o th er political m ovem ents before it, has unearthed a trem endous body o f know ledge that has not been let into colleges and universities, into high schools, into grade schools, fo r political reasons. A nd for that reason, y o u r relationship to kn ow led ge has to be a qu esting one:

not learning w h a t you are given, but finding w h a t qu estions you m ust ask. T h e w om en 's m ovem en t in general, w ith m any exceptions, w ith m any failures, w ith m any im perfections, has been dedicated to that process o f finding out w hich qu estions to ask and asking those questions.

A lot o f the questions are considered unspeakable. T h e y are unspeakable questions. A n d w h en th ey are asked, those w h o ask them are greeted w ith extrao rd in ary hostility. I am sure you h ave experienced som eth in g sim ilar w h e n e v e r you h ave asked a question that som ebody didn't w a n t asked. E veryth in g th at you h ave been tau gh t about the liberal tradition o f education, abo u t the valu e of books, th e b eau ty o f art, the m eaning of creativity, is lost, m eans nothing, unless you retain the independence to ask y o u r o w n questions, alw ays, th ro u gh o u t y o u r lives. A n d it is easier n o w than it will be in ten years, and it is easier n o w than it will be w h e n yo u are fifty or sixty or seven ty. It is one o f the m ost extrao rd in ary th in gs about g ettin g older: e v ery th in g that people say about becom ing m ore co n servative is true. E veryth in g that people say abo ut selling o u t is true. If y o u are not brave en ou gh n o w to ask the qu estion s th at you think need to be asked, you will n ever be brave en ou gh . S o don't ev er put it o ff. T h e w o m en 's m ovem en t can n ot su rv iv e unless yo u m ake that com m itm ent. T h e w o m e n s m ovem en t is not a m o v em en t that just passes d o w n an ideology: it's a m ovem en t that creates ideology, and th at is v e ry d ifferent. It creates w a y s o f u nd erstan d in g th e w orld in w h ich w o m en live, w a y s o f u nd erstan d in g the social co n stru ction o f m asculinity and fem inin ity, w a y s o f und erstan d in g w h a t prejudice is as a social construction , h o w it w o rk s, h o w it is transm itted. It creates w a y s o f u nd erstan d in g w h a t the hatred o f w o m en is, w h y it exists, h o w it is transm itted, w h a t fu n ctio n it serves in this society or in any o th er society, regardless o f h o w that society is o rgan ized econom ically, regardless o f w h ich side o f the Iron C u rta in it is on, w h e th e r or not it is a nuclear society. S o w e are dedicated to qu estions and w e try to find an sw ers.

W e are also a m o vem en t against hu m an su fferin g. T h e re is n o w a y to be a fem inist and to fo rget that. If you are a fem inist, and if you have fo rgo tten that o u r purpose is to end the su ffe rin g o f cou ntless unn am ed and invisible w o m en from the crim es com m itted against th em — and yes, w e m ay also end the su fferin g o f the m en w h o are

com m itting the crimes, yes, w e probably think w e can— then your fem inism is hollow and it doesn't m atter, it doesn't count. This is a m ovem ent against suffering. So, in betw een the lines, w hen you hear people say that this is a m ovem ent for freedom , for justice, for equality— and all of that is entirely and deeply tru e— you m ust rem em ber that w e are trying to elim inate su fferin g too. Freedom, justice, and equality have become slogan words, M adison A ven u e words: so has revolution. N obody tries to sell suffering: in Am erika, suffering is barely acknowledged. Su fferin g does not fit into the advertising schem e of things as a goal for a happy Am erikan. So it is a good m easure o f you r ow n com m itm ent to understand that in the end, in the end, the positives that w e are searching for have to be m easured against the true condition o f w om en that w e kn o w and that w e understand. T h e goal of the society w e live in is to achieve Happiness, consum er Happiness. You are supposed to get Happiness from lip gloss and tw en ty -fo u r hours of television every day. That m eans that you are not supposed to feel pain: you m ight not kn ow w hat it is you do feel, but you m ust not feel pain. O n e of the things the w om en s m ovem ent does is to m ake you feel pain. Y ou feel your o w n pain, the pain of other w om en, the pain of sisters w hose lives you can barely imagine. You have to have a lot of courage to accept that if you com mit yourself, over the long term , not just for three m onths, not for a year, not for tw o years, but for a lifetime, to fem inism, to the w om en's m ovem ent, that you are going to live with a lot of pain. In this cou ntry that is not a fashionable thing to do. So be prepared for the therapists. And be prepared for the prescriptions. Be prepared for all the people w h o tell you that its you r problem , it's not a social problem, and w h y are you so bitter, and w h at's w ro n g with you? And underneath that is alw ays the presum ption that the rape w as delusional, that the battery did not happen, that the econom ic hardship is your ow n u nfortunate personal failing. Hold o nto the fact that that's not true: it has never been true.

T h ere have been many w ays of defining the essential concerns of feminism. There are m any differences of opinion. T h ere are m any ideological strains in the w o m e n s m ovem ent. T h ere are m any d ifferent sets of priorities. I am going to discuss mine as an individual fem inist w h o w rites books, w h o travels around the co u n try a lot, w h o hears from w om en all over the world. You decide w h at that means.

I think that w o m en 's fundam ental condition is defined literally by the lack of physical integrity of o u r bodies. I think that o u r subordinate place in society begins there. I do not think w e can talk about w o m en 's condition in strictly econom ic term s, th ou gh I do not w a n t to see any exclusion o f econom ics from any discussion of w o m en 's condition. But I w ould say that w h a t is fun dam ental and w h at m ust alw ays be considered is the sexual and reproductive in tegrity of a w om an 's body. A w o m an is an individual and w o m en are a class. T h e class o f w o m en includes w o m en o f ev e ry race, econom ic and social condition, in ev ery society on the face o f this globe.

It used to be that som e fem inists w ou ld speak at college cam puses and w ou ld say, "Y ou 're too y o u n g to k n o w a n yth in g, w h a t do you k n o w , w h a t have you ev er experienced, w ait until you g et o u t there, w ait until the bastards start fu ckin g w ith you , then you'll see w h a t fem inism is ab o u t. " T h e search for k n o w led ge has revealed that by th e tim e w o m en are the age o f m ost o f the w o m en in this room , one in fo u r has been sexually assaulted already. In fact since m ost o f you are o ver eigh teen, I suspect that m ore than a q u a rter o f y o u h ave had this experience o f sexual assault.

Incest is the first assault. W e n e ver had an y idea o f h o w com m on it w as. W e h ave a lw ays heard o f the incest taboo, but, as I am sure you h ave heard in o th er con texts, law s are m eant to be broken: this one especially. M o st incest victim s are girls. T h e y are assaulted in a va riety o f w a y s, freq u en tly by their fath ers, o ften by step -fath ers. W e are talking about assault by m en w h o are in intim ate situations of p ow er: adults w ith children, beloved adults. V e r y little incest is com m itted by w o m en w ith children. T h e re is beating of children by w o m en , a lot o f it. W e m ust not leave that out. A lot o f w o m en are forced to h ave children th ey do not w a n t, and th ere is a lot o f b a ttery especially on those children. But th ere does not seem to be v e ry m uch sexual abuse.

Incest is terrifically im portan t in und erstan d in g the condition of w o m en . It is a crim e that is com m itted against som eone, a crim e from w h ich m an y victim s n ever recover. N o w , life is hard, or, as Jim my C a rte r said, life is unfair. H orrible th in gs happen from w h ich people n e ve r recover. T h a t is true. Probably no w o m an ev er reco vers from a rape; probably no w o m an ev er reco vers fro m battery. B ut this is

different, because the child does not have a chance in the w orld. Her w hole system of reality, her w hole capacity to form attachm ents, her whole capacity

to understand

the m eaning of self-respect, is

destroyed by som eone w hom she loves. Incest victim s are now organizing in this country, and they are organizing politically. O n e of the reasons that they are organizing politically and not psychiatrically is because they understand that it is the p ow er o f the fath er in the family that creates the environm ent that licenses the abuse. T h ey understand that probably better than anyone w h o hasn't had the experience understands it. T h ey have seen the m o th e rs fear of the father; they kn o w their ow n fear o f the father; they have seen the com m unity support for the father; they have seen the psychiatric com m unity's defense of the father; they have seen the legal system 's refusal to treat the father like a criminal; th ey have seen the religious leaders' refusal to take incest as seriously as the grave crim e of hom osexuality. T h ey understand the world in w hich w om en live.

M ost im portant, I think, they understand the fear of their m others, which is not to say that they ever forgive their m others for w hat happened to them . This is a society in w hich it is v e ry hard to forgive you r m other, no m atter w h at happens to you. But incest victim s are truly at the center of our political situation. T h ey have been, in m y opinion, the bravest am ong us for speaking o ut about w h at happened to them w h en they w ere children. And th ey are organizing to get children som e protection, som e rights: and the w om en's m ovem ent has to be m ore serious in understanding that the connection betw een w om en and children really is political. T h e pow er of the father is w hat m akes w om en and children a political underclass.

Marital rape is also very im portant in understanding the condition o f w om en. N o w I will tell you a story. I have a godson. It is a surprise to me that I have this godson, but I do. M y godson's father is a civil liberties law yer. I do not like civil liberties law yers because they defend pornographers and racists and rapists and Nazis. In m any w ays w e are ideological and political enem ies. M y godson's m other, w h o is m y close friend, is an anti-rape fem inist. T hat m eans that she understands fem inism through understanding rape. M y godson's fath er tells me, and he publishes an article in a new spaper that tells a lot o f people, that w hen a w om an is raped by som eone she kn ow s it is not so bad. He also says, to me and the public, that in m arriage rape is

im possible, not because the law says so— alth ough the law freq u en tly does say so— but because w e can n ever k n o w w h a t the w om an really w anted. M y godson's fath er is a v e ry nice m an, a v e ry sensitive man.

He defends rapists in co u rt— even th ou gh his doing so causes his w ife unbearable personal pain— because he believes that w o m en co n ­ sistently accuse m en o f rape w h en th ey have only had sex and because he believes that penalties fo r rape are too severe a n y w a y. It is im possible fo r him to even consider that being raped by som eone you k n o w — like a hu sban d — m ight be worse than being raped by a stranger; that it can d estroy y o u r ability to go on; that it is the rape of yo u r body and also the total destruction o f y o u r in tegrity and yo u r self-esteem , y o u r trust, y o u r deepest privacy. T h e physical injuries that w o m en su ffe r in m arital rape are no less g ra ve than the physical injuries that w o m en su ffer in an y o th er kind o f rape. N everth eless, in the hom e the right to privacy has gu aran teed the husband total access to his w ife's body. V e ry specific statu tes h a ve guaran teed him that access, those rights. A t the sam e tim e w e h ave in this co u n try a clim ate in w h ich people are terrified o f crim e on th e streets. W om en are scared to death o f rape. B ut the tru th is— factually, not just polem ically— that e v e ry w o m an is m ore likely to be raped by som eone she kn o w s, especially by a fath er or a husband; and the hom e, w h ich is being prom oted as a place o f peace and h a rm o n y and C h ristian bliss is the m ost d an gero u s place in the w orld fo r a w om an . T h a t is the tru th .

A w o m an w h o is m urdered is likely to be m u rdered in h er hom e by a husband or lover. It is v e ry hard to find o u t h o w m an y w o m en are actually battered: th e estim ates based on research are n o w close to fifty percent o f m arried w o m e n — fifty percen t o f m arried w o m en h ave perhaps been battered at som e point in a m arriage. T h a t's w ar.

T h a t's not life, that's w ar.

R ecen tly there w as a gan g rape in N e w B edford. Y o u had a vigil here. F orty-th ree percent o f all the rapes com m itted in this co u n try are pair o r g an g rapes. F orty-th ree percent. T w e n ty -s e v e n percent are th ree o r m ore m en; sixteen percent are tw o m en. G a n g rape is com m on, and it is alm ost n ever su ccessfu lly prosecuted because th e m en are w itn esses for each other: th e y all tell th e sam e sto ry. T h e y all say that the victim cam e w ith them w illin gly o r took m on ey. It doesn't m atter w h a t happened to the w o m an . T h e re will not be a p rosecu tion at all for th at rape. T h e im plications o f this are sta gg erin g becau se it

m eans that any group of men can rape any individual w om an, and that is in fact the case.

T h e Kinsey Institute, which studied such diverse phenom ena as sex, sex, and sex, called gang rape "polyandrous attention. " A w om an, according to Kinsey research, walked d ow n a street. Actually, the K insey categories are such that a w om an is defined as som eone fifteen years old or more. So m aybe a teenager is walking dow n the street. She is gang-raped: male predators follow her, seek her out, force her. It is "polyandrous atten tion. " Th at is the m ost recognition that gang rape has had until fem inists began to analyze rape.

In talking about rape, w e often talk about strangers w h o rape w om en, because that is the stereotype o f rape, and also because strangers do rape w om en, though in less than half the rapes com m itted. M ost w om en will be raped by som ebody they know . So w h y is it that w e are brought up to believe that rape is com m itted by strangers w hen m ostly it isn't? In m y view , rape is simply a m atter of access. T h ere is no qualitative distinction about men here. T h e group of m en that w e know are w orse to us than the group o f men that w e don't kn ow because they have the m ost access to us. Rape is a question o f access. M en will rape w om en to w hom they have access.

T h e stranger in rape is used in a very im portant political w ay, especially in organizing w om en on the right: the stranger is used as a scapegoat. In the United States the stran ger is black and he is a rapist.

In Nazi G erm an y the stranger w as a Jew and he w as a rapist.

This use of rape associated w ith a stran ger is a basic com ponent of racism. W om en's fears o f rape are legitim ate. T h o se fears are manipulated to serve the ends o f racism.

We n o w see the same scapegoat strategy being used against h om osexual men, w h o are accused o f child m olestation w h en m ost child m olestation is o f little girls. It is not that hom osexual m en do not rape. T h ey do. So do black m en and Jewish men. M en in all classes and o f all races and ethnicities rape, w hich is not to say that all m en rape. It is to say that all m en benefit from rape, because all m en benefit from the fact that w om en are not free in this society; that w om en cow er; that w om en are afraid; that w om en cannot assert the rights that w e have, limited as those rights are, because of the ubiquitous presence o f rape.

W hen fem inists began paying attention to rape, o u r intrusion into

this area of male th ou gh t and m ale stu d y and m ale activity w as not m uch appreciated. W e w ere told that w e w e re m aking th in gs w o rse for certain grou ps of m en, especially fo r black men. Before the fem inist m ovem ent, rape w as treated by politically p rogressive people as a com plete figm ent o f a w om an 's im agination or as a ven gefu l, reactionary, racist effo rt to d estroy som ebody else or as an act o f personal vengeance. T h e distinction I am m aking h ere is v e ry im portan t because rape is real. T h e selective use of the identity of the rapist has been false. T h a t is a stagg erin g ly d an gero u s piece of inform ation, because w h en w e look especially at w h ite m ale an ger w ith fem inists for dealing w ith rape at all, w e find that suddenly for the first time in the h istory o f this co u n try w h ite m en w e re included in the catego ry of potential rapists. S om ebody w as o nto their gam e at last. T h e y did not like it. It is precisely the w h ite liberals w h o h ave been saying that th ey have been figh tin g u niversally fraud u len t claims against black m en all th ese years w h o w e re m ost stubborn in refu sin g to understand that rape w as real and that rape w as com m itted by all kinds and classes o f m en, including them. T h e y w e re perpetu ating the racist stereotypin g b y refu sin g to ack n o w led ge that all kinds of m en do rape, thus leaving black m en as the rapists in the public mind.

W e frequ en tly find o u rselves in these d an gero u s and difficult situations because w e are challenging not only p o w e r— and p o w er is serious, p o w er is im p ortan t— but notions o f reality w ith w h ich people have becom e com fortable even th o u g h th e y protest them . It is not true th at because people protest a condition th ey really w a n t to see it elim inated. It is an u gly but basic fact o f life that too freq u en tly protest is a form o f attach m en t to a condition, and w h e n you elim inate the condition, you elim inate the fu n ction that the person has created for him self. T h e ultim ate goal o f fem inism is to m ake fem inism unn ecessary. A nd th at m akes fem inism d ifferen t from o th e r political m ovem en ts in this co u n try .

C o n n ected w ith forced sex is forced pregn an cy. A s a radical fem inist, one is co n stan tly accused of m an y things: h atin g m en, for instance, but also not k n o w in g a n yth in g. People say, well, if you on ly k n e w this you w ou ld n 't think that. I think that I m ust be the o nly w o m an alive w h o at o v e r the age o f th irty has been taken aside by people, radical people, kindly people, so that th ey could explain to m e

h ow the sperm unites w ith the egg so that I could understand the basis of sexuality and reproduction and w h y this system in w hich w e now live is essential for our continued survival. So w hat can you do?

W hen people keep telling you that you don't understand som ething, you have to try to understand it. So I tried to understand it, and it led to an astonishing conclusion: because w hen the sperm and egg unite there is the possibility o f fertilization and a baby can be born, it doesn't m atter w h eth er the sex act w as volun tary or involuntary. T h e pregnancy does not depend on the consent of the w om an to sex; it only depends on the act taking place, the act of intercourse. Th en look at w hat w e know about w om en and forced sex. W e kn o w that possibly fifty percent of married w om en are or have been battered.

We kn o w that rape is endemic, that incest is endem ic. W e kn o w that w om en get pregnant a lot, all the time. W e kn o w that w om en are blamed fo r their pregnancies w hen th ey w an t to term inate them; w e k n o w that w om en are held responsible for sex all the time w h eth er they are responsible or not. W e k n o w that all the responsibility for the child will ultim ately rest on the w om an. She will feed it, she will clothe it, she will decide through her behavior w h eth er the child lives or dies. She is the one w h o will be responsible for the child's life.

I am not going to talk about reproductive rights now; I w ant to talk about abortion, only abortion. Killing is central to it: the killing that takes place in forced sex. T h e killing is in sex that is forced, and every single syn on ym for sex in this society says so. All the w ords. Killing me softly; violation: all the w ords that have to do w ith sex are hostile w ords, dangerous words, so-called dirty words. T h e w ord vagina m eans sheath. All the pornographic im agery has to do w ith hostility: and there are w eapons, knives, the use o f the penis as a w eapon. W e didn't do this; fem inists didn't do this. W e are not responsible for creating it, but w e are m aking people face it. So the practical reality is that as long as sex is forced on w om en, w om en m ust have the right to abortion, absolutely, no m atter w h at it m eans, no m atter w h a t you think it m eans.

A bortion is also ideologically central to understanding w om en's condition. W hat abortion m eans to w om en is the absolute righ t to control the reproductive functions of o u r o w n bodies. T h ere are o th er reproductive rights w e need: not to be sterilized against o ur will as is happening system atically in som e populations because o f race

and class (sex being the precondition). B ut abortion is the sym bol o f a w o m a n s life: and that is because w h en abortion w a s criminal in this co u n try, w o m en died in h u ge nu m bers, and w o m en died horrible, horrible deaths. D eath by criminal abortion w a s death by torture.

D eath by putrefaction. G a n g ren o u s death. D ra w n -o u t bleeding-todeath. T h at is w h at it w as like and that is w h y the w o m en w h o lived th ro u gh

it will n ever give up on

the stru ggle

for the

total

decrim inalization o f abortion, free fun ding, the absolute availability of safe abortion for all w o m en . W hich brings us to m on ey. N o w w o m en w ith m on ey g et abortions w h en th ey w a n t them and w o m en w ith o u t m on ey do not. W om en as a class are poor. W om en w h o w o rk earn fifty-six to fifty-n ine cents on the dollar to w h a t m en g et for com parable w ork. T h ese figu res are im portant. T h e y really m atter.

W om en g et 100 percent of the pregnancies, bu t o n ly half the dollar.

O n e o f the reasons that w o m en are kept in a state o f econom ic d egradation — because t h a t 's w h a t it is fo r m ost w o m e n — is because that is the best w a y to keep w o m en sexu ally available. W e can also talk about the w a y capitalism is organized , the w a y m ultinationals w o rk , the w a y cheap labor is exploited by exploiting all kinds o f people on the basis o f race and class; bu t the fact o f th e m atter is th at w h e n w o m en are econom ically dependent, w o m en are sexually available.

W om en have g o t to sell se x — at hom e, at w o rk; and som e w o m en only h ave sex to sell because th ey a re kept illiterate and untrained and because w o m en

are paid so little fo r "h o n est" w o rk a n y w a y .

System atic econom ic debasem en t tu rn s e v e ry w o m an in to a w o m an w h o can be b ou ght, a w o m an w h o will be b o u gh t, and it is b etter to be a w o m an w h o has a high m arket value.

Instead o f h aving a direct relationship to real w o rk , and being able to g o o u t and earn m on ey (and h avin g the sam e econom ic and political responsibilities for the econom ic system and its exploitation o f w o rk ers in general that m en have) w o m en w o rk fo r pittances and b arter sex. Equality across sex m eans equal blessings and equal responsibilities, including equal econom ic and political responsibilities fo r the econom ic system . Equal pay fo r equal w o rk w o u ld m ean, too, th at w o m en w o u ld begin to break a w a y sexu ally fro m m en in a w h o le host o f w ays. T h is has n othing to do w ith being straigh t o r being gay.

It has n oth in g to do w ith an y o f the propaganda against the w o m e n s m o vem en t that says w e hate m en, w a n t to d estro y them , castrate

th em — I can't even think o f all the things w e are supposed to w ant to do to them once w e can do w h a tever w e w ant. Every w om an lives w ith a knife in her kitchen; every w om an can do w h at she w ants right now . But the assertion o f independence is a lot m ore com plex, isn't it?

It really m eans that you have to take som e responsibility for you r life, and a lot of w om en's problem s are tied up w ith the enforced dependence on m en that w e are forced to develop. Som e of that is expressed in sexual neediness; som e o f it is expressed in self­ denigration. And even if none of that applies, the fact o f the m atter is that if you w an t to be an econom ically solvent w om an in this society, you had damn well better be attached to a m an— if not in you r hom e, then in the workplace. Som ew h ere. If you don't have that connection som ew h ere you are in a lot of trouble.

T h e econom ic exploitation of w om en as a class m eans that w e have to sell sex and that m akes us, as a class, not irrationally view ed as prostitutes by m en w h eth er they call us prostitutes or not. A lot of the law s that w e deal w ith are based on the assum ption that a w om an will sell herself to anyon e for anything. If you have a gro u p of people w h o are poor enough, the likelihood is that th ey will, and m any w om en are poor enough. W hen you have endem ic sexual harassm ent in the workplace, it is based on the presum ption that the w om an is there as a sexual being and is by h er nature som e kind of a p rostitu te— she will give sex for m on ey or she will give sex for em ploym ent. T h at is part o f w h at she is for. T h at is part of w h at she is.

T h ere are differences b etw een m arriage and prostitution. Like prostitution, m arriage is an institution that is extrem ely oppressive and dangerous for w om en. W om en lose civil rights w h en th ey get married in m ost states. T h ere is a w h ole continuum of rights that you don't have once you becom e a m arried w om an in m ost places. T h e y range from the inability to o w n you r o w n property (in Louisiana, for instance, w hich is still govern ed by law s derived from the Napoleonic code, if you can believe it) to the loss o f y o u r o w n rights o ver you r o w n body. Y ou m ust have sex w ith y o u r husband w h en he w ants.

T h at is his legal right and yo u r legal obligation. O n e o f the differences b etw een m arriage and prostitution is that in m arriage you only have to m ake a deal w ith one man. A lot o f w o m en p refer m arriage to

prostitution for that reason. It is safer, a better deal. T h a t is one o f the m ajor reasons that righ t-w in g w o m en defend the sanctity and insularity o f the hom e. T h e y don't w an t to be o u t on the streets selling their asses. A re you going to say th ey're stupid or w ro n g ?

T h e y 're not stupid. T h ey 're sm art. T h e y understand the system that th ey live in, and th ey understand w h a t it is th ey h ave to trade for shelter and decent health and a little security. A nd then, like all good gam blers, th ey take their chances. Like all women, th ey take their chances.

Briefly, about prostitution: it is v e ry m uch in o u r interest as w o m en to see that prostitution is decrim inalized. T h e crim inalization o f prostitution leaves poor w o m en open to the m ost extrao rd in ary kind of

abuse

and

exploitation— by

pim ps,

by

porn ographers,

by

professional bu yers and sellers of w o m en . It is also v e ry im portan t to us as w o m en that prostitution not be legalized. In o th er w o rd s, there should be no law s against prostitu tion and there should be no law s regulating prostitution. In cou ntries w h ere prostitution is legalized, w o m en are freq u en tly kept prisoners in brothels. I recom m end that y o u read K a th y B arry's Female Sexual Slavery, w hich is about forced p rostitution on a global scale. I h ave lived in A m sterdam , Holland, w h e re prostitution is de facto legalized, that is, regulated by the police rath er openly. People th ere live to be a v e ry old age, excep t fo r the prostitu tes, w h o die v e ry y ou n g. T h e re is virtually no junkie problem , excep t am ong the prostitutes. T h e y use heroin, th ey use m orphine, th ey sm oke opium . W om en w h o are prostitu tes in system s w h e re p rostitu tion is legalized n e ver escape prostitu tion, and one o f the reasons that th ey n ever escape is that the police d on't let them . So it is against the interests o f w o m en to do a n y th in g that will put o th er w o m en , som e w o m en , any w o m en , in the position w h e re th ey m u st be p rostitu tes fo r the rest o f their lives. T h en , th ere is the qu estion of w h a t p rostitu tion does to the w o m an h erself, the individual person. It is a question, I think, that w e all h ave to ask ou rselves, because w e all m ake deals. T h e w o m an w h o is a profession al p rostitu te is in a p articularly abject situation. C u r re n t studies h a ve sh o w n that in som e cities up to se ven ty percent o f the w o m en w h o are w o rk in g in prostitu tion h ave been incest victim s. W om en becom e p rostitu tes o ften because th e y run a w a y from h o m e at a v e ry early age. T h e y run

aw ay because they are being abused. T h e y are particularly vulnerable to the pimps because they have not learned any system o f self­ protection or any form of self-respect; and also because w h at they are com ing from in their minds has to be w orse than w h at they are going tow ard. W e have to change their situation.

Pornography is very closely related to prostitution, certainly for the w om en w h o are in it. For the w om en w h o are in it, v e ry often pornography is a step up. A n yth in g indoors is a step up. It's cold out there.

Pornography is m any things. It is an industry. W e estim ate that it is an $8-billion-a-year industry. It is larger than the conventional film and record industries combined. T h in k of w h at that m eans about the consum ption of pornography and h ow that consum ption relates to the m en, the vast num bers of m en, w h o are com m itting the sexual assaults I am talking about. T h e content o f pornography is alm ost alw ays the same. It has a universal quality. Either the w om an w an ts to be raped and w an ts to be hurt and really likes it or she doesn't, in w hich case all of these things are still done to her and she discovers, lo and behold, that she loved it all along, and really her life w as so em pty before all these things happened to her. P ornography is hate propaganda against w om en. It not only encourages acts of violence against us but it says that w e love them . Pornography is an extrem ely vital and vigorous and effective belief system . It is also behavioral training. People say, "O h , well, porn ography— that's for m astur­ bation, nobody can get hurt that w a y . " But orgasm is a ve ry serious rew ard, isn't it? Think of Pavlov's little dogs, right? T h e y don't just think about salivating; they salivate. T h e y do it because they learned it. Period. N o w think about pornography. T h e dehum anization is a basic part of the content of all pornography w ith o u t exception.

Pornography in this cou n try in the last ten years has becom e increasingly violent by every m easure, including Playboy, including all the stu ff you take for granted; and every single orgasm is a rew ard for believing that m aterial, absorbing that material, responding to that value system : having a sexual response to stu ff that m akes w om en inferior, subhum an.

N oth in g in this system is unrelated to an yth in g else, and there is a relationship betw een rape and pornography. P orn ograph y celebrates rape. W e have a trem endous am ount o f inform ation on the use of

p orn ograph y in rapes that no au th o rity w ould consider im portant * W e h ave a trem en dous am ou n t o f inform ation from incest victim s that their fathers used porn ograph y. So let m e just talk to you briefly about h o w the w o m en 's m ovem en t g ets its inform ation, and w h y w e are alm ost a lw ays right. In the last ten years there has been a pattern.

Fem inists have said that som ethin g happens or is tru e and then ten thousand authorities have said "th at's bullshit. " A n d then som ebody started doing studies, and then three years later th ey say, "w ell, well, rape is endem ic. " R ight? T h e y say to us, w ell, y o u r figure w as too low , it's ten tim es that, right? T h e FBI discovers rape, right?

T h e sam e thing happened w ith battery. W om en love to be beaten: that is w h a t authorities think and say. Battered w iv es begin speaking.

W om en begin to em erge from situations in w h ich th ey h ave been held captive and terrorized for ten years, tw elve years, fifteen years.

"O h , w h a t crap, " the auth orities say. Five years later w e h ave sociologists telling us that th ey did a stu d y in C aliforn ia and fou nd out th at fifty percent o f m arried w o m en had been beaten. It w asn 't n ew s to us. W e have a terrific trick. W e listen to the w o m en . It is an unbelievably top secret m ethod that w e don't let an yb o d y else k n o w about. It is h o w w e found o u t about incest. W h en w o m en started talking about h aving been incestu ou sly abused th ree o r fo u r or five years ago ev ery o n e said it did not happen. N o w the au th orities use o u r figure: on e in fou r. W e n o w think the fig u re is too low , and w e 're right. T h ey'll find o u t that w e 're right.

So the relationship b etw een rape and p o rn og rap h y is not really a m atter o f speculation. T h e studies are being done, som e h ave been done, they will be done, w e can discuss them if y o u w a n t to discuss them : but I am telling you that w e h ave th e stories o f w o m en w h o say that p o rn ograp h y w a s cen trally involved in th e rape. W e k n o w th at it is tru e. P orn o grap h y is h o w -to m aterial. T h e r e are rapists w h o use it th at w a y . T h e re are b atterers w h o use it that w a y . T h e r e are D ad dyrapists w h o use it that w ay. T h e r e are loving, b atterin g h usban ds w h o use it that w a y , and it will be established beyond an y d ou bt that it is used that w a y by masses o f m en. N o w , w h e re does this leave us?

In M inneapolis on D ecem ber

12 and 13, 1983, the M inneapolis C ity C ouncil held

hearings that established the centrality of pornography in sexual abuse as experienced by w om en along the w hole continuum of forced and hostile sex acts imposed classically on fem ales. T h e proof is n ow all in one place, and it is irrefutable

It is a total non sequitur to me, but som e people feel that w e are left w ith questions about freedom of speech. Som e people think that questions about freedom of speech are a logical political response to w hat I have just said about harm . T h ey do not mean the freedom of speech of the victims; they mean the freedom of speech of the porno足 graphers. Say som ething about pornography and som ebody says, "w h at about freedom of speech? " Well, w hat about freedom of speech? W ho has it? Who has it? W here does it begin? I say it begins w ith the incest victim; I say t h a t 's w h ere it begins. It begins w ith that child w h o is captive in that hom e w h o cannot say no. O r freedom of speech m ight begin on a pool table in N e w Bedford: freedom of speech m ight begin w ith the w om an gang-raped on the pool table in public. Her freedom of speech: did she have any? A bou t six w eeks before that gang rape took place, Hustler had precisely, precisely, the sam e gan g rape. It w as in the January issue: on a pool table, in the sam e kind o f bar, everyth ing in that lay-out is w h a t happened in that bar. Coincidence? A copy-cat rape? W e n o w have as part o f o ur social fabric and virtual public policy the public celebration o f rape. People go to films to celebrate rape. People say that the fact that Linda M archiano, w h o w as kn ow n as Linda Lovelace, w as beaten and raped and forced to make Deep Throat doesn't m atter. Deep Throat is m ore im portant. Deep Throat is speech. W e need Deep Throat, right? T h e fact that som eone w as held in captivity and terrorized in order to make the film is not supposed to diminish the im portance o f the film to our freedom . M aybe free speech begins w ith Linda M archiano.

T h e First A m endm ent w as w ritten by w hite m en w h o w ere literate and w h o ow ned land. M an y o f them ow ned slaves and m any of them ow ned w om en. It w as illegal to teach slaves to read o r w rite, and none o f them w orried about the First A m endm ent. T h e First A m end m ent

w as w ritten

by those m en because literacy and

ow nership of property w ere linked. Literacy w as a sign o f upper-class pow er. T h e First A m endm ent w as w ritten to preserve that pow er.

N o w it protects a d ifferent kind o f pow er, a m ore vu lgar pow er. It is not an aristocratic power. It is the pure p o w er o f m oney. It is the pimp's pow er. T hat is w h at it does now . It does not em p o w er w om en.

It does nothing for us w h en w e w rite o u r books, w h en w e sing our songs. It w as never intended to, and if w e're concerned about freedom o f speech, w hat w e have to do is to find a w a y to get it.

Fem inists have asked— just pro fo rm a — the A C L U (A m erican C ivil Liberties Union) to help us. W e've said, 'lo o k , w o m en are excluded historically and econom ically from a n y possible participation in this media w orld that costs so m uch m on ey. A n d so are blacks. A nd so are Hispanics. A nd so are o th er dispossessed people in this co u n try. W hat about o u r righ ts to speech? H o w do w e g et th e m ? " T h e A C L U defen ds the corporations. T h e y defen d N B C ; th ey d efen d the o w n e rs of n ew sp apers to print w h a t th ey w an t. T h e y do not d efend y o u r right o r m y right to be heard in those places. T h e y defen d the righ ts o f the ow ners to decide w h a t will o r will n ot be said. W e need a political approach to civil liberties in this co u n try — not a liberal, sentim ental, nonsensical approach. W h ere is p o w er? W h o has it? W h o has freed om o f expression ? W hat does it m ean? W h at does it am o u n t to?

H o w does it w o rk out in real life? W ho does the State com e d o w n on and w h y ? A nd w h o are the people so dispossessed that the State doesn't

even

w o r ry

about

them ?

The

State

con trols

those

dispossessed people in o th e r w ays. I say to yo u as a w rite r and as a w o m an that literacy, w ritin g a book, speaking h ere before y o u , are signs o f trem en dou s privilege. T h ese are not co m m o n righ ts w e can all exercise.

W e all w a n t to think o f o u rselves as individuals. W e all w a n t to think that o u r qualities m ake a d ifferen ce in the w o rld , and it is a brutal thing to find o u t that because y o u 're a w o m an , o r because y o u 're black, o r because yo u 're Jew ish, o r because y o u are a n y th in g else, because o f y o u r condition o f birth, certain exp ression s o f individuality are closed o ff to you.

M an y w o m en rebel against fem inism because m an y w o m en thin k w e are the o n es insisting th at th eir full h u m an u niqu en ess can n ot be exp ressed because th ey are w o m en . W e are the brin gers o f the terrible m essage. W e fo u n d this out by being w o m e n in th e w orld . W e w a n t to ch an ge it. T h is is not a condition im posed by a political m ovem en t. T h is is a condition im posed b y m ale su prem acy. T h a t is w h a t w e w a n t to ch ange, so that each individual can be h erself, need not co n form to a definition o f h er fu n ctio n and a definition o f h er bo dy and a d efinition o f her w o rth that has n o th in g w h a tso e v e r to do w ith h er personally. S o m etim es, th o u g h , the political m o v em en t against m ale su p rem acy is co n fu sed w ith m ale su p rem acy itself, as if w e're the o n es w h o are telling y o u , "becau se y o u are w o m e n , y o u 're

going to have to do this and this and this. " W e're reporters. W e re telling you that because you re w o m en you live in this world I'm describing, and that the only w a y to do anyth in g about it is to take som e political responsibility for its existence and to w o rk collectively together, which never m eans the abandonm ent o f you r integrity as individuals. It also never m eans the abandonm ent of com m on sense or com m on decency. If it does, there is som ething w ro n g w ith the w a y you are going about organizing against w h at it is t h a t 's upsetting you and m aking you angry and exploiting you and h urting you.

T h ere is nothing that fem inists w an t m ore than to becom e irrelevant. W e w ant the end of the exploitation of w om en; but as long as there is rape— as long as there is rape— there is not going to be any peace or justice or equality or freedom . Y ou are not going to becom e w hat you w an t to becom e or w h o you w an t to becom e. Y ou are not going to live in the world you w an t to live in. And so you have to organize an agenda. I don't have an agenda. M y agenda is everyth in g I can think of, everything I think o f doing, all the time: m ovem ent, m ovem ent, physical and intellectual and political confrontations with power. Y ou have to w rite the picket signs, march, scream, yell, w rite the fucking letters. It's you r responsibility to you rselves and to o th e r w om en.

T h ere is one thing that is not practical, and it's the thing I believe in m ost, and that is the im portance o f vision in the m idst o f w h at has to be done, never forgetting for one m inute the w orld that you really w an t to live in and h o w you w an t to live in it and w h at it m eans to you and h o w much you care about it— w h at you w an t for yourselves and w h at you w an t for the people that you love. E veryw h ere in this co u n try n o w people are told to be com placent because change is impossible. C h an ge is not impossible. It is not impossible. M an y things have to be changed in the world. It is n o w time to change the condition o f w om en, finally and absolutely and for all time. T h at is m y agenda, and I thank you fo r listening.

Margaret Papandreou: An American Feminist in Greece

It is important to understand that a published interview is not a transcript of a conversation. This, like virtually all interviews, is cut-and-pasted from a much longer literal text. I am against this process and was aghast at how many changes were made in the interview before publication. I don't think I could ever interview anyone again because the published interview is always artifice. Margaret Papandreou is not misrepresented, nor am I; but this is not what went down. A s someone who has been interviewed a lot, I hate the distortions introduced by editorial excision and revision. In this case, even with my care and the care of Robin Morgan, who as an editor at M s. was responsible for the piece, I am not at peace with either the process or the result. Things were not said in this way, in this order, and a lot is missing. Think of it as edited tape: the fragments you see on television documentaries culled from long dialogues that you can never either recreate or imagine.

W

1965

HEN THE

m il it a r y

junta took o v e r G reece on A pril 21, 1967,

m an y o f the friends I had on C re te , w h e re I had lived in and

1966,

w e re

arrested .

T h o se

friends spanned

m an y

gen eration s. So m e had been im prisoned u nd er the rig h t-w in g M etaxas d ictatorship in the 1930s or their parents had been. Som e had su rvived the N azi occupation o f C re te . Som e had been jailed— or older friends had b ee n — a fter the 19 4 6 -4 9 civil w a r because th ey w e re C o m m u n ists. All rem em b ered, as if it had happened to th em , the T u rk ish occupation (m ore than 400 years, en ding in 1829).

Everyone I met understood political terror and feared the police. All, no m atter w hat their politics, w ere reticent, discreet, aw are that the liberal govern m ent of G eorge Papandreou, then Prime M inister, w as in trouble and that the Right, w ith Am erican support, m ight well im pose harsher restraints on civil liberties. T h e C om m un ist Party w as

illegal,

and

those w h o

w ere

or had

been

m em bers or

sym pathizers w ere particularly in jeopardy. Especially irritating to the Right w as a leftist econom ist named Andreas Papandreou, son of G eorge, and a visible, persuasive radical w h o cam e to represent the political aspirations m any had to hide.

D uring m y first days on C rete, G eo rge Papendreou cam e to speak.

Th ree days before his speech, people began com ing into the city from the m ountains— in w agons, on mules, on foot, w hole families, w om en carrying infants, thousands o f peasants. T w o years later, the military junta w as in pow er and G eo rge Papandreou and his dissident son w ere in jail. T h ere w ere 6000 political prisoners.

G eo rge Papandreou died in 1968. Andreas, w h o in 1939 had been tortured

under the M etaxas dictatorship, w as kept in solitary

confinem ent for eight m onths and allowed to exercise in isolation in a specially built cage. Pressure from John K en neth G albraith, Gloria Steinem , and others persuaded Lyndon Johnson to persuade the colonels to allow Andreas to go into exile. He returned to G reece w h en the junta fell in 1974; and in 198 1, the founder of a n ew socialist political party, he becam e Prime M inister of G reece.

He is married to an Am erican, M argaret C h a n t from Elm hurst, Illinois, a fem inist activist w ith w h o m I had the pleasure of speaking w h en she w as in the United States to visit her fam ily. I w as particularly excited to have the opportunity to m eet w ith her. T o me, the election o f her husband w as a vindication o f the friends I loved w h o had been jailed (despite the fact that m an y of them are in leftist parties that oppose A ndreas Papandreou). But also, M argaret is a fem inist in a co u n try in w hich only tw o out o f ev ery hundred w om en have attended college and only nine out o f ev ery hundred have com pleted secondary school; in w hich w om en w ere not given the vote until 1952; in w hich a w om an cannot legally be the guardian of h er o w n children, even w h en the fath er dies. It is hard to im agine the w ife o f a chief executive w h o is not only the president o f the W o m e n s Union of G reece, but also a real fem inist organizer. M argaret

Papandreou

is such

a w om an . T h ese are excerpts from

our

conversation.

Andrea Dworkin: In G reece, w o m en are socially segregated, certainly in public. H o w has this segregation affected you ?

Margaret Papandreou: I suppose its the condition that caused me to m ake w o m en 's rights m y m ajor political stru ggle. W hen I first w e n t to G reece I saw the second-class, third-class— it's even w o rse than second-class— statu s o f w o m en in the cou n try. It affected m e v e ry m uch. M an y G reek w o m en feel the sam e w a y . T h e y h ave lived w ith this thing and are dedicated to figh tin g against it. A nd that's been extrem ely positive fo r me, to find w o m en w h o desperately w an t this kind o f political activism .

A.D.: In the U nited States, consciousness-raising w a s instrum ental in the d evelopm ent o f a w o m en 's m ovem en t, because even th o u g h w e are socially integrated into the w orld, w e fou n d ourselves in total isolation from one another. G reek w o m en live m uch m ore to g eth er than w e do, in extend ed fam ilies, in village stru ctu res, and so on. D o they realize w h a t th ey h ave in com m on? O r are th ey still isolated from w h a t happens to one an o th er?

M.P.: I w ou ld say th ey're still isolated. T h e y still feel it necessary to defend their husbands, to sh o w that each has the best husband in the group. Especially in the village areas, it's v e ry hard fo r them to open up and say w h a t is in their hearts. T h eir sole source o f prestige and u p w ard m obility is th ro u g h their husbands.

O n ly th irty percent o f o u r w o m en w o rk outside the h om e. So w e h ave tw o -th ird s o f w o m en w h o are solely h o u sew ives. (Every w o m an w h o w o rk s outside the h om e is also a h o u se w ife . ) It's v e ry im p ortan t to them that th e y giv e a v iew to the neigh bor or to the village that th ey h a ve a good m arriage.

W hen w e g o ou t and o rgan ize w o m en in the villages, w e don't ask them directly if th ey'v e been beaten by their husbands. W e ask if th ey k n o w o f beatings. M o st o f them will shake their heads "n o . " Som e y o u n g e r w o m en will say, "W h at do you m ean, w h a t are you saying?

W e k n o w th ere are beatings go in g on in this village. " But the m ajority will n o t w a n t to say it. W hen I say "y o u n g w o m e n , " I should correct that: som etim es it is an older w o m an , a w o m an o f about se v e n ty -fiv e o r eigh ty.

A.D.: D o you have any notion of w h at the level of violence is that G reek

w om en

experience

in the

hom e?

The

intensity?

T he

frequency?

M.P.: We don't have any statistics as far as I know , but I think it's a ve ry great deal. In a m ale-dom inated society, in a patriarchal society w ith the hierarchy o f the fam ily that exists, and in the attitude tow ard the w om en, there couldn't be anyth in g but violence in the family. T h e w ife is there as an animal, that is, the person w h o carries the w ater, w h o serves the man, so then she can be kicked, too. It's not so hard, she's not a hum an being. I'm not talking about the very you n g generation, but there's not that m uch change from generation to generation.

A.D.: O n e of m y m ost vivid m em ories of C re te w as the old w om en, m any o f them survivors from the Nazi occupation, w h en w h ole villages of men w ere killed. A re they any part of you r organizing?

T h ey're form idable w om en.

M.P.: Y es, they are. W hen th ey com e out and speak, w e usually kn o w w e 'v e got the m akings of a good chapter o f o u r fem inist organization.

T h ere are som e o f them yet w h o feel that th ey have the ideas but because they are illiterate they don't w a n t to take an active role.

T h ey're intimidated.

And then w e have o th er w o m e n — w e've

recorded their statem ents— and they really give it to all the m en in the village, to the w hole goddam ned system . I w ould say that w h en you find a stron g G reek w om an, you find a really strong w om an, because she's had to struggle th rou gh all kinds o f odds. W hen she com es out of that and decides to play a leadership role, you can count on trem endous strength and she's ready fo r alm ost anything.

A.D.: Is there anythin g in that system of sex segregation that you think is a political plus for G reek w o m en ? Is there any particular strength or pride developed that can be built on politically?

M.P.: I can't see w h ere that kind o f sex segregation gives any particular strength to w om en. But w h a t w e do in the W om en's U nion— I think it's very im portant that w e don't have m en because w e are doing political education— w e take w o m en w h o h ave never had any organization experience, n ever an y political thinking that th ey could adopt, and in that en viron m en t w hich is supportive and pushes them to m ove ahead, they learn things th ey n ever w ould learn

if th ey w e n t into a m ixed organization at the very beginning. It's like a school.

I have seen som e rem arkable developing.

W e've been

functioning since 1975, and som e of these w o m en w h o couldn't face a public m eeting are deputies in Parliam ent today. So they h ave a fantastic pace of d evelopm ent once th ey get into it, even m ore than a m an has w h o is in it from the tim e h e 's born.

A.D.: D o the m ale-dom inated political parties object to all-w om en political gro u p s?

M.P.: Y es, th ey tend to ridicule us, to call us bourgeois, middle-class, educated, elitist, and say that all w e do is drink tea. S u ffra g ettes, w e r e called. A nd also w e are told that it w eaken s the m ajor stru ggle, w h ich is the stru ggle fo r socialism. If you m anage to g et socialism, th ey say, then y o u r w o rries are o ver, the w o m an is suddenly equal and ev ery th in g 's fine. W e've had to fight against all those things.

A.D.: I w a n t to ask you som eth in g that is v e ry im portant to me.

W hen I first w e n t to C re te I w a s a w a re o f w h a t the N azis had done on the island and w h a t the T u rk s had done. I k n o w that under M etaxas and again a fter the civil w a r a trem en do u s n u m ber o f G ree k s experienced prison and police bru tality at the hands of o th er G reeks, and certain ly w ith the junta th ere w e re seven years o f system atic police bru tality and torture. W hen m en are tortured, it's alw ays view ed as political. W hen w o m en are tortured , as in rape, battery, p o rn ograp h y, it's view ed as sexual; w o m en are seen to be natural victim s. It seem s to m e that in G reece th ere is a unique historical circum stance: there's a political gen eration that has a basis for really understan din g w h a t tortu re is, the kind o f total psychic as w ell as physical abuse inheren t in it. D o yo u think it's possible fo r that to provide som e kind o f basis fo r really u nd erstan d in g w h a t violence against w o m en is, and fo r really tran sfo rm in g the sexual oppression of w o m en ?

M.P.: T h a t's a good th o u g h t— a good possible tactic to use in term s of the education o f o u r m en. So far, u n fo rtu n ately , even th ose w h o h ave gon e th ro u g h this kind of experience m ake the division b etw een that and sexual abuse and tortu re. T h e y h aven 't made the jum p, and m aybe it's also because w o m en h ave not yet reached the stage w h e re th ey can sit d o w n and talk to m en and try to discuss th ese issues. But I h ave n ever heard a m an in G reece talk that w a y , certain ly not m en

w h o have gon e through trem endous torture them selves. W hat success w ould you say there has been in the United States in m aking the connection?

A.D.: V ery little. W e can't even m ake people understand that w h en you torture a w om an in pornography, w h en you do to a w om an w h at you w ouldn't do to a dog o r cat, there m ight be som ething w ro n g w ith it.

M.P.: But w h at you're saying is that w ith the specific experience o f G reek m en during the period of the dictatorship, there m ight be a basis for som e better understanding?

A.D.: Yes. Also, in m y experience on C rete, w hile I encountered intense m ale dom ination— the kind you feel only in a sex-segregated society, especially if you're an outsider and fem ale— there w as also the m ost extraordinary belief in dem ocracy. It w asn't silly or rom antic; it seemed to be visceral.

M.P.: But the belief in dem ocracy as a political ideal is still not carried th rou gh , for exam ple, to form a dem ocratic fam ily. T h e w om an is in a separate com partm ent, w h eth er it has to do w ith dem ocracy, w ith socialism, w ith practically any political philosophy you can find. T h e w om an's issue is a separate issue; it is com partm entalized; it is shoved aw ay. M en don't w ant to think about it. A nd they don't even find difficulty in reconciling these things. It is not a philosophical issue for them . It's am azing. Som etim es w e've had banquets that our w om en's chapter has given in the villages. M en and w om en com e, and I will talk to som e o f those w h o are m em bers o f P A S O K . * T h e y will sit at m y table. And a m an will say to me, "I'm a socialist, you know , but w h en it com es to w o m en — " And he thinks this is all right, that a w om an's place is in the hom e. If you say, "W ouldn't the w om an like to g o out and also experience som e political action, shouldn't she belong to the local organization o f P A S O K ? "— well, then, h e ll ask, "B u t w h o's going to take care of the children? " I rem em ber one discussion in w hich w e w e re talking about the change in the fam ily law. T h e speaker w as saying that there's no reason w h y a man, if a child gets sick, could not stay hom e from w o rk him self for som e days; they should divide this responsibility. T h ere

An acronym for the Panhellenic Socialist M ovem ent, the party Founded by Andreas Papandreou.

w a s a farm er there. He w a s o bviously trying to u n d erstan d these things. A nd he raised his hand a fterw ard and he said, "But you said I should stay hom e w ith the baby. " He put his hands o ut, like this, you kn ow : "H o w could I hold that baby, I mean w h a t could I— ? " He w as stru gglin g to understand h o w he could hold a baby. He couldn't fath om it. So there's a wall.

A.D.: W hat do y o u hope for, realistically, organ izin g w o m en in the n ext decade?

M.P.: First o f all, I hope to raise the level o f consciousness on this w h o le issue. A n d I think this is being done. From then on, I believe as w o m en understand the sources o f their oppression, th ey understand also their need to stru gg le against it. T h a t m eans th ey will unite m ore and m ore, join som e kind o f g ro u p — th ey don't h ave to join ours.

W hat I'd like to see is that th ey g et active w ith organizations. T h at, then, is a m ovem ent. I believe that this is happening and I believe that it is g ro w in g —

D u rin g this visit to the States I am goin g to the

United N ation s w h e re o u r g o v ern m en t represen tative th ere is going to

sign

the

international

resolution

fo r

the

abolishm en t

of

discrim ination against w o m en , w h ich the fo rm er G reek g o v e rn m e n t refused

to ratify and sign . t

So w e h a ve accepted a kind of

international fra m e w o rk for the w h o le question o f discrim ination against w o m en .

T h e changing o f attitud es and traditions will be a long, long thing, and to m e that's the m ost difficult o f all. I don't expect to see it in m y lifetim e. But legally w e can do som e th in gs now— and w e will do them .

Margaret Papandreou on Women's Organizations in Greece Seven years o f dictatorship kept w o m en a w a y fro m an y kind of political activity. All the w o m en 's organ izatio n s w e re abolished and w o m en w e re actually put in jail fo r h avin g belonged to w o m en 's organizations. T h eir lists w e re confiscated. W hen I cam e back, the first tw o years the w h o le society w a s fu n ctio n in g und er fear but w o m en w e re especially afraid. T h e re w e re those co u ra g eou s w o m en w h o really started rebuilding w o m en 's o rgan ization s. In those first

t T h e United States has not ratified this resolution.

fe w years, it w as very hard. So w e 'v e had to g o th rou gh a different experience than w om en in the United States.

W e have three mass w om en's organizations. O n e is the W om en's Union, to w hich I belong. A n o th er is m ost closely tied to the C om m u n ist Party. A third is the O rgan ization of Dem ocratic W om en, w hich belongs to the splinter party of the C o m m u n ist Party, the E uro-Com m unists. T h ey are the m ost fem inist in their approach and their positions.

Within o ur o w n organization, w e have som e w o m en w h o express conservative ideas, som e religious people— w e have a really wide spectrum . T he main thrust is very progressive and socialist. O u r doors are open to any w om en w h o accept o ur organization's constitution, but m ost of the w om en w h o com e to o u r organization are either m em bers o r friends o f P A S O K . W e are not controlled or given direction by the party. But w h en you have a num ber o f party m em bers in the organization, they will push the party line in som e cases. So w e have this socialist-fem inist kind o f m entality. T h e w ord ' fem inist" in G reece is a m uch w o rse w ord than '"socialist." Socialism has becom e a little bit respectable. Feminism has not.

We have tw o w om en deputy m inisters in the govern m en t and o n e— M elina M ercouri— as M inister o f C u ltu re and Sciences. All three w om en have w h at you m ight call w om en's posts. Also, in term s of the hierarchy of m inistries, they are not at the top. W e didn't m anage to get w om en appointed to really nontraditional posts— for instance, M itterand in France did appoint a w om an M inister of A griculture. We didn't m anage to do that.

Margaret Papandreou on: The Family Law: T h e Family C ode virtually defines the w om an as incapable o f independent and intelligent judgm ent. She m ust alw ays be under the control of a male. T h e man is the head of the fam ily. He has all of the rights o ver the children. If there is a divorce and the man is stripped o f his parental auth o rity for som e reason, the co u rt assigns a guardian or adviser for h e r— a man.

D owry: T h e w om an has the right to hold o n to the d o w ry that she b rou ght into m arriage, but the man has the right to invest or m ake decisions about that capital or property, and he takes the incom e.

A dultery: T h e decrim inalization o f ad u ltery is a w o m e n s issue. [At the tim e o f o u r in terview , adu ltery w as a crim e w ith jail sentences o f up to a y e a r , m ostly falling to the w o m en . In July 1982, adu ltery w as decrim inalized. ] Battery: I don't believe it is even an issue legally.

Rape: T h e law defines rape o n ly as e n try into the vagina. O ral o r anal rape o r an y o th er kind o f sexual abuse is not considered rape. T h e re is rape presu m ably o n ly w h en there is a potential that the w o m an can get pregnant. T h e concept o f m arital rape is not included.

Prostitution: T h ere are legalized h o uses o f prostitution. T h e w o m en are asked to report fo r health exam inations. T h e police p retty m uch control the houses.

A bortion: A bo rtio n is not legal. W e h ave about the h igh est abortion rate o f a n y European co u n try. A b o rtio n is the m eans o f birth control.

T h ere is no sex education in schools o r elsew h ere and no public in form ation on birth -control techniques. D o ctors w h o p erform abortions n ever g iv e w o m en in form ation on h o w to avoid p regnancy.

It's a v e ry profitable incom e fo r the doctors. I've talked to w o m en w h o h ave had as m an y as tw e n ty abortions.

Lesbianism: W e're v e ry m uch behind on som e issues. B ut if y o u look at the d evelo p m en t o f the fem inist m o v em en t in the United States, lesbianism w as not one o f th e first issues. T h e W om en 's M o v e m e n t had to g r o w and understand w h a t the key issues w ere, the really fem inist issues. W e h a ven 't g on e th ro u g h this yet.

I Want A Twenty-Four-Hour Truce During Which There Is No Rape

This was a speech given at the Midwest Regional Conference of the National Organization for Changing Men in the fall of 1983 in St Paul, Minnesota.

One of the organizers kindly sent me a tape and a transcript of my speech. The magazine of the mens movement, M ., published it. I was teaching in Minneapolis. This was before Catharine MacKinnon and I had proposed or developed the civil rights approach to pornography as a legislative strategy. Lots of people were in the audience who later became key players in the fight for the civil rights bill. I didn't know them then. It was an audience of about 500 men, with scattered women. I spoke from notes and was actually on my way to Idaho— an eight-hour tripeach way (because of bad air connections) to give a onehour speech on A rt— fly out Saturday, come back Sunday, cant talk more than one hour or you'll miss the only plane leaving that day, you have to run from the podium to the car for the two-hour drive to the plane. Why would a militant feminist under this kind of pressure stop off on her way to the airport to say hi to 500 men? In a sense, this was a feminist dream-come-true. What would you say to 500 men if you could? This is what I said, how I used my chance. The men reacted with considerable love and support and also with considerable anger.

Both. I hurried out to get my plane, the first hurdle for getting to Idaho. Only one man in the 500 threatened me physically. He was stopped by a woman bodyguard (and friend) who had accompanied me.

I

h a v e t h o u g h t a great deal about h o w a fem inist, like m yself,

addresses

an

audience

prim arily

of

political

m en

who

say

that they are antisexist. And I th o u g h t a lot about w h eth er there

should be a qualitative d ifference in the kind o f speech I address to you. A nd then I found m yself incapable of pretending that I really believe that that qualitative d ifference exists. I have w atch ed the m en's m ovem en t fo r m an y years. I am close w ith som e of the people w h o participate in it. I can't com e here as a friend even th ou gh I m ight v e ry m uch w a n t to. W hat I w ou ld like to do is to scream: and in that scream I w ould have the scream s o f the raped, and the sobs of the battered; and ev en w o rse, in the cen ter o f that scream I w ould have the d eafen in g sound o f w o m en 's silence, that silence into w h ich w e are b o m because w e are w o m en and in w h ich m ost o f us die.

A n d if there w ou ld be a plea o r a question or a hu m an address in th at scream , it w ou ld be this: w h y are y o u so slow ? W h y are you so slo w

to

understand

the

sim plest

things; not the com plicated

ideological things. Y o u understand those. The simple things. T h e cliches. Sim ply that w o m en are h u m an to precisely the d egree and quality that y o u are.

A n d also: that w e do not h ave tim e. W e w o m en . W e don't h ave forever. Som e o f us don't h ave a n o th e r w e e k or an o th e r day to take tim e fo r y o u to discuss w h a te v e r it is that w ill enable y o u to g o out into th ose streets and do som ethin g. W e are v e ry close to death. A ll w o m en are. A n d w e are v e ry close to rape and w e are v e ry close to beating. A n d w e are inside a system of hum iliation from w h ich th ere is no escape fo r us. W e use statistics not to try to q u a n tify the injuries, but to convince the w orld that th ose injuries even exist. T h o se statistics are not abstractions. It is easy to say, "A h , the statistics, som ebody w rite s them up one w a y and som ebody w rite s them up an o th e r w a y . " T h a t's true. B ut I h ear about the rapes one by one by one by one by one, w h ich is also h o w th ey happen. T h o se statistics are not abstract to me. E very three m inutes a w o m an is being raped.

E very eigh teen seconds a w o m an is being beaten. T h e re is n oth ing abstract abo u t it. It is happening right n o w as I am speaking.

A n d it is h appening fo r a sim ple reason. T h e r e is n oth ing com plex and difficult about the reason. M en are doing it, because o f th e kind of p o w e r that m en h ave o v e r w o m en . T h a t p o w er is real, co ncrete, exercised fro m one body to a n o th er body, exercised by som eone w h o feels he has a right to exercise it, exercised in public and exercised in private. It is the sum and su bstan ce o f w o m en 's oppression.

It is not done 5000 m iles a w a y or 3000 m iles a w a y. It is d on e h ere

and it is done now and it is done by the people in this room as well as by o th er contem poraries: o ur friends, our neighbors, people that w e know . W om en don't have to go to school to learn about pow er. W e just have to be w om en, w alking d ow n the street or trying to get the h o usew ork done after having given one's body in m arriage and then having no rights over it.

T h e pow er exercised by m en day to day in life is pow er that is institutionalized. It is protected by law. It is protected by religion and religious

practice.

It

is

protected

by

universities,

w hich

are

strongholds o f male suprem acy. It is protected by a police force. It is protected by those w h om

Shelley called "the unacknow ledged

legislators o f the world": the poets, the artists. A gainst that pow er, w e have silence.

It is an extraordinary thing to try to understand and confront w h y it is that men believe— and men do believe— that they have the right to rape. M en m ay not believe it w h en asked. Everybody raise you r hand w ho believes you have the right to rape. N ot too m any hands will go up. It's in life that men believe th ey have the right to force sex, w hich they don't call rape. A nd it is an extraordinary thing to try to understand that men really believe that they have the right to hit and to hurt. And it is an equally extraordinary thing to try to understand that men really believe that they have the right to bu y a w om an's body for the purpose of having sex: that that is a right. And it is very am azing to try to understand that m en believe that the seven-billiondollar-a-year industry that provides men w ith cunts is som ething that m en have a right to.

T h at is the w a y the pow er of m en is m anifest in real life. T h at is w h at theory about male suprem acy m eans. It m eans you can rape. It m eans you can hit. It m eans you can hurt. It m eans you can bu y and sell w om en. It m eans that there is a class of people there to provide you w ith w h at you need. Y ou stay richer than th ey are, so that they have to sell you sex. N ot just on street corners, but in the w orkplace.

T h at's another right that you can presum e to have: sexual access to any w om an in you r en vironm ent, w h en you w ant.

N o w , the m e n s m ovem ent su ggests that men don't w ant the kind of p o w er I have just described. I've actually heard explicit w h o le sentences to that effect. And yet, everyth in g is a reason not to do som ething about changing the fact that you do have that pow er.

Hiding behind guilt, that's m y favorite. I love that one. O h , it's horrible, yes, and I'm so sorry. Y o u have the tim e to feel guilty. W e don't h ave the tim e for you to feel guilty. Y o u r guilt is a form of acquiescence in w h a t continu es to occur. Y o u r guilt helps keep things the w a y th ey are.

I h ave heard in the last several years a great deal about the su fferin g o f m en o v e r sexism . O f cou rse, I h ave heard a great deal about the su fferin g o f m en all m y life. N eedless to say, I h ave read Hamlet. I h ave read King Lear. I am an educated w o m an . I k n o w that m en su ffer. T h is is a n e w w rinkle. Implicit in the idea that this is a d ifferen t kind of su fferin g is the claim, I think, that in part you are actually su fferin g because o f som ethin g that y o u k n o w happens to som eone else. T h a t w ould indeed be new .

But m ostly y o u r guilt, y o u r su fferin g, reduces to: gee, w e really feel so bad. E veryth in g m akes m en feel so bad: w h a t you do, w h a t you don 't do, w h a t you w a n t to do, w h a t you don't w a n t to w a n t to do but are going to do a n y w a y. I thin k m ost o f y o u r distress is: gee, w e really feel so bad. A n d I'm so rry that y o u feel so bad— so uselessly and stupidly bad— because th ere is a w a y in w h ich this really is y o u r tragedy. A n d I don't m ean because y o u can't cry. A n d I don't m ean because there is no real intim acy in y o u r lives. A nd I don't m ean because the arm o r that you h ave to live w ith as m en is stultifying: and I don't doubt that it is. But I don't m ean any of that.

I m ean that th ere is a relationship b etw e en the w a y that w o m en are raped and y o u r socialization to rape and the w a r m achine that grinds yo u up and spits you out: the w a r m achine that yo u g o th ro u gh just like that w o m an w e n t th ro u gh L arry Flynt's m eat grin d er on the co ver o f Hustler. Y o u dam n w ell b etter believe that yo u 're involved in this tragedy and that it's y o u r traged y too. Because y o u 're turned into little soldier boys fro m the day that you are born and e v e ry th in g that you learn about h o w to avoid the h u m an ity of w o m en becom es part o f th e m ilitarism o f the co u n try in w h ich y o u live and the w orld in w h ich yo u live. It is also part o f th e eco n o m y that you freq u en tly claim to protest.

A nd the problem is that you think it's o u t there: and it's not out there. It's in you. T h e pim ps and the w a rm o n g ers speak fo r you. Rape and w a r are

not

so d ifferen t.

A nd

w hat

the pim ps and the

w a rm o n g ers do is that th ey m ake you so proud o f being m en w h o can

g et it up and give it hard. And th ey take that acculturated sexuality and they put you in little uniform s and they send you out to kill and to die. N o w , I am not going to suggest to you that I think that's m ore im portant than w hat you do to w om en, because I don't.

But I think that if you w an t to look at w h at this system does to you, then that is w h ere you should start looking: the sexual politics of aggression; the sexual politics o f militarism. I think that m en are very afraid of oth er men. T h at is som ething that you som etim es try to address in you r small groups, as if if you changed you r attitudes tow ards each other, you w ouldn't be afraid of each other.

But as long as you r sexuality has to do w ith aggression and you r sense o f entitlem ent to hum anity has to do w ith being superior to oth er people, and there is so m uch contem pt and hostility in you r attitudes tow ards w om en and children, h o w could you not be afraid of each other? I think that you rightly perceive— w ith ou t being willing to face it politically— that men are v e ry dangerous: because you are.

T h e solution of the m en's m ovem ent to m ake men less dangerous to each oth er by changing the w a y you touch and feel each o th er is not a solution. It's a recreational break.

T h ese conferences are also concerned w ith hom ophobia. H om o­ phobia is ve ry im portant: it is very im portant to the w a y male suprem acy w orks. In m y opinion, the prohibitions against male h om osexuality exist in order to protect male pow er. Do it to her. T h at is to say: as long as m en rape, it is very im portant that m en be directed to rape w om en. A s long as sex is full of hostility and expresses both pow er o ver and contem pt for the o th er person, it is very im portant that m en not be declassed, stigm atized as fem ale, used similarly. T h e p o w er o f m en as a class depends on keeping m en sexually inviolate and w om en sexually used by men. H om ophobia helps m aintain that class pow er: it also helps keep you as individuals safe from each other, safe from rape. If you w an t to do som ething about hom ophobia, you are going to have to do som ething about the fact that m en rape, and that forced sex is not incidental to male sexuality but is in practice paradigm atic.

Som e o f you are very concerned about the rise of the R ight in this co u n try, as if that is som ething separate from the issues o f fem inism o r the m en's m ovem ent. T h ere is a cartoon I saw that b rou gh t it all

to g eth er nicely. It w as a big picture o f Ronald Reagan as a co w b o y w ith a big hat and a gun . A nd it said: "A g u n in ev e ry holster; a pregnant w o m an in ev ery hom e. M ake Am erica a m an a ga in . "T h o se are the politics o f th e Right.

If you are afraid o f the ascendancy o f fascism in this c o u n try — and you w ou ld be v e ry foolish not to be right n o w — then you had b etter understan d that the root issue here has to do w ith m ale su prem acy and the control of w o m en ; sexual access to w om en ; w o m en as reproductive slaves; private o w n ersh ip o f w o m en . T h a t is the program o f the Right. T h a t is the m orality th ey talk about. T h a t is w h a t th ey m ean. T h a t is w h a t th ey w an t. A n d the only opposition to them that m atters is an opposition to m en o w n in g w om en .

W h a t 's involved in doing so m eth in g about all o f this? T h e m e n s m ovem en t seem s to stay stuck on tw o points. T h e first is that m en don 't really feel v e ry good about them selves. H o w could you ? T h e second is that m en com e to m e or to o th er fem inists and say: "W h at yo u 're sayin g about m en isn't true. It isn't tru e o f me. I don't feel that w a y . I'm opposed to all of this. " A nd I say: don't tell m e. Tell the porn ographers. Tell the pimps. Tell th e w arm akers. Tell the rape apologists and the rape celebrationists and the pro-rape ideologues. Tell the novelists w h o thin k th at rape is w o n d erfu l. Tell L arry Flynt. Tell H ugh H efner. T h ere's no point in telling me. I'm o nly a w o m an . T h e re 's n o th in g I can do about it. T h ese m en p resu m e to speak fo r you. T h e y are in the public arena saying th at th ey represen t you. If th ey don't, then you had b etter let them kn o w .

T h en th ere is the private w orld o f m isogyny: w h a t you k n o w about each other; w h a t you say in private life; the exploitation that you see in

the

private sphere;

the

relationships called love, based on

exploitation. It's not en o u g h to find som e traveling fem inist on the road and g o up to her and say: "G ee , I h ate it. " Say it to y o u r friends w h o are doing it. A nd th ere are streets out th ere on w h ich you can say these th in gs loud and clear, so as to affect the actual institu tions th at m aintain these abuses. Y o u don 't like p o rn o g rap h y? I w ish I could believe it's true. I will believe it w h en I see you on the streets. I will believe it w h en I see an organized political opposition. I will believe it w h en pim ps g o ou t o f business because th ere are no m ore male consu m ers.

Y o u w an t to organize men. Y o u don't have to search for issues.

T h e issues are part o f the fabric of you r everyd ay lives.

I

w an t to talk to you about equality, w hat equality is and w h at it

means. It isn't just an idea. It's not som e insipid w ord that ends up being bullshit. It doesn't have anythin g at all to do w ith all those statem ents like: "O h , that happens to m en too. " I nam e an abuse and I hear: "O h , it happens to men too. " T h at is not the equality w e are strugglin g for. W e could change our strategy and say: well, okay, w e w ant equality; w e ll stick som ething up the ass of a man every three minutes.

Y ou 've never heard that from the fem inist m ovem ent, because for us equality has real dignity and im portance— it's not som e dum b w ord that can be tw isted and made to look stupid as if it had no real m eaning.

A s a w a y of practicing equality, som e vagu e idea about giving up p ow er is useless. Som e men have vague thou gh ts about a fu tu re in w hich men are going to give up pow er or an individual man is going to give up som e kind of privilege that he has. T h at is not w h at equality m eans either.

Equality is a practice. It is an action. It is a w a y o f life. It is a social practice. It is an econom ic practice. It is a sexual practice. It can't exist in a vacuum . Y ou can't have it in you r hom e if, w h en the people leave the hom e, he is in a w orld of his suprem acy based on the existence of his cock and she is in a world of hum iliation and degradation because she is perceived to be inferior and because her sexuality is a curse.

This is not to say that the attem pt to practice equality in the hom e doesn't m atter. It m atters, but it is not en ough. If you love equality, if you believe in it, if it is the w a y you w an t to live— not just m en and w o m en together in a hom e, but m en and m en togeth er in a hom e and w o m en and w om en together in a h om e— if equality is w h at you w an t and w h a t you care about, then you have to fight for the institutions that will m ake it socially real.

It is not just a m atter o f y ou r attitude. Y o u can't think it and m ake it exist. Y ou can't try som etim es, w h en it w o rk s to y o u r advantage, and th ro w it out the rest of the time. Equality is a discipline. It is a w a y of life. It is a political necessity to create equality in institutions. A nd an o th er thing about equality is that it cannot coexist w ith rape. It cannot. A nd it cannot coexist w ith porn ography or w ith prostitution

o r w ith the econom ic degradation of w o m en on any level, in any w ay.

It cann ot coexist, because implicit in all those thin gs is the inferiority o f w om en.

I w a n t to see this m e n s m ovem en t m ake a com m itm ent to ending rape because that is the only m eaningful com m itm en t to equality. It is astonishing that in all o u r w orld s o f fem inism and antisexism w e n ever talk seriously about ending rape. Ending it. Stopping it. N o m ore. N o m ore rape. In the back o f o u r minds, are w e holding on to its inevitability as the last preserve o f the biological? D o w e thin k th at it is alw ays going to exist no m atter w h a t w e do? All o f o u r political actions are lies if w e don't m ake a com m itm en t to ending the practice o f rape. T h is com m itm ent has to be political. It has to be serious. It has to be system atic. It has to be public. It can't be self-indulgent.

T h e things the m en's m ovem en t has w an ted are th in gs w o rth having. Intim acy is w o rth having. T en d ern ess is w o rth having.

C o op eration is w o rth having. A real em otional life is w o rth having.

But y o u can't have them in a w orld w ith rape. Ending hom ophobia is w o rth doing. B ut you can't do it in a w orld w ith rape. Rape stands in th e w a y o f each and e v e ry one o f those th in gs you say you w an t. A nd by rape y o u k n o w w h a t I m ean. A judge does not h ave to w alk into this room and say that according to statu te such and such these are the elem ents o f proof. W e're talking ab o u t an y kind of coerced sex, including sex coerced by p overty.

Y o u can't h ave equality or tenderness or intim acy as long as th ere is rape, because rape m eans terror. It m eans that part o f the population lives in a state o f terro r and p reten d s— to please and pacify y o u — that it doesn't. So th ere is no h o n esty. H o w can th ere be? C a n you im agine w h a t it is like to live as a w o m an d ay in and day o u t w ith the th reat of rape? O r w h a t it is like to live w ith the reality? I w a n t to see you use th ose

legend ary

bodies and

that legen d ary

stren g th and

that

legen d ary co u rage and the tend erness that y o u say you h ave in behalf o f w om en; and that m eans against the rapists, against the pim ps, and against the porn ograph ers. It m eans so m eth in g m ore than a personal renunciation. It m eans a system atic, political, active, public attack.

A nd th ere has been v e ry little o f that.

I cam e h ere today because I d on 't believe th at rape is inevitable or natural. If I did, I w ou ld h ave no reason to be here. If I did, m y political practice w o u ld be d ifferen t than it is. H ave y o u e v e r w o n d ered w h y

w e are not just in armed com bat against you? It's not because there's a shortage o f kitchen knives in this cou ntry. It is because w e believe in you r hum anity, against all the evidence.

We do not w ant to do the w o rk of helping you to believe in you r hum anity. We cannot do it anym ore. W e have alw ays tried. W e have been repaid w ith system atic exploitation and system atic abuse. Y ou are going to have to do this yourselves from now on and you k n o w it.

T h e sham e of m en in front o f w om en is, I think, an appropriate response both to w h at m en do do and to w hat m en do not do. I think you should be ashamed. But w h at you do w ith that sham e is to use it as an excuse to keep doing w h a t you w an t and to keep not doing anything else; and you've got to stop. Y o u 've got to stop. Y o u r psychology doesn't m atter. H ow m uch you hurt doesn't m atter in the end any m ore than h o w m uch w e h urt m atters. If w e sat around and only talked about h o w m uch rape hurt us, do you think there would have been one of the changes that you have seen in this co u n try in the last fifteen years? T h ere w ouldn't have been.

It is true that w e had to talk to each other. H ow else, after all, w ere w e supposed to find out that each o f us w as not the only w om an in the world not asking for it to w h om rape or battery had ever happened? We couldn't read it in the new spapers, not then. W e couldn't find a book about it. But you do k n o w and n o w the question is w h at you are going to do; and so you r sham e and you r guilt are very much beside the point. T h ey don't m atter to us at all, in any w ay.

T h ey're not good enough. T h ey don't do anything.

A s a fem inist, I carry the rape of all the w om en I've talked to over the past ten years personally w ith me. A s a w om an, I carry m y ow n rape w ith me. D o you rem em ber pictures that you 've seen of European cities during the plague, w h en there w ere w h eelbarro w s that w ould go along and people w ould just pick up corpses and th ro w them in? Well, that is w h a t it is like kn ow in g about rape. Piles and piles and piles of bodies that have w hole lives and hum an nam es and hum an faces.

I speak for m any fem inists, not only m yself, w h en I tell you that I am tired o f w h at I k n o w and sad beyond any w ords I h ave about w h at has already been done to w om en up to this point, now , up to 2:24 p. m. on this day, here in this place.

A nd I w an t one day o f respite, one day o ff, one day in w hich no new

bodies are piled up, one day in w hich no n e w a go n y is added to the old, and I am asking you to g ive it to me. A nd h o w could I ask you for less— it is so little. A nd h o w could you o ffe r m e less: it is so little. Even in w ars, there are days o f truce. G o and o rgan ize a truce. Stop you r side fo r one day. I w a n t a tw e n ty -fo u r-h o u r truce during w hich th ere is no rape.

I dare you to try it. I dem and that you try it. I don 't m ind beggin g you to try it. W hat else could yo u possibly be here to do? W hat else could this m ovem en t possibly m ean? W hat else could m atter so m uch?

A nd on that day, that day o f truce, that day w h en not one w o m an is raped, w e will begin the real practice o f equality, because w e can't begin it before that day. B efore th at d ay it m eans nothing because it is nothing: it is not real; it is not true. B u t on th at day it becom es real.

A nd then, instead o f rape w e will fo r the first tim e in o u r lives— both m en and w o m e n — begin to experience freedom .

If you have a conception o f freedom that includes the existen ce of rape, yo u are w ro n g . Y o u cann ot change w h a t you say you w a n t to change. For m yself, I w a n t to experience just one day o f real freedom b efore I die. I leave you here to do that fo r m e and fo r the w o m en w h o m you say you love.

Violence Against Women: It Breaks the Heart, Also the Bones

Early in 198 3, I went to the Republic of Ireland to speak at a conference on pornography organized by the Committee Against Sexual Exploitation (CASE) in Dublin. I fell in love with Ireland. The women I met were so special. I was stunned by their endurance, their humor, their strength, their kindness, their warmth. Because I was on Irish television, vast numbers of people recognized me and talked with me: old women ran out of houses and down the street to thank me for what I had said about women's rights; joggers stopped to say they agreed about how pornography hurt women (the television interview had been acrimonious, so they were letting me know they appreciated my holding my own); people at concerts and in pubs and everywhere I went wanted to say hello. Some very bitter but nevertheless friendly men wanted to say that I was wrong about everything. I forged close ties with feminists in the Republic and also went up North and met feminists from a more desperate Ireland. I remain devoted to the Irish Womens Movement. I was pleased to be asked to contribute this essay to P erso n ally Sp eakin g, a collection of writings by Irish feminists published by an Irish feminist press. This essay has never been published in the United States.

h at brea k s th e

people,

heart about violence against w o m en is that

including

w om en,

do

not

know

it w h en

they

see it, w h en th ey do it o r collaborate in it, w h en th ey experience it— even as victim s o f it. W hat breaks the spirit o f those figh tin g for w o m en 's rights is that one can n ever take for granted a realization that a w om an is an actual hum an being w h o , w h en h u rt, is hurt.

T h e hu rtin g o f w o m en is so basic to the sexual pleasure o f m en, to the social and sexual dom inance that m en exercise o ver w o m en , to

the econom ic degradation im posed on w o m en by m en, that w om en are sim ply considered those creatu res made by G od or biology for w h at w ould be abuse if it w e re done to m en (hum an beings); but it is being done to w om en , so it is not abuse; it is instead sim ply w h at w o m en are for.

The natural relation of the sexes m eans that w o m en are m ade to be used the w a y m en use us n o w , in a w orld o f civil, social, and econom ic inequality based on sex; a w orld in w hich w o m en have limited rights, no physical integrity, and no real self-determ ination. T h is condition of inequity is even good for us, because w e are d ifferen t from m en.

W hen m en are deprived o f social equality, th ey are h u rt in their rights to self-respect and freedom . Inequality actually causes w o m en to thrive, and provides the best en viro n m en t fo r sexual pleasure and personal fulfillm ent.

T h is nature^bf o u rs has en tirely to do w ith sex: sex is o u r natural function, and o u r lives are supposed to be predeterm ined by this natural use to w h ich o u r bodies are put fo r reproduction or for pleasure, depending on the ideology o f the person m aking the claim.

O u r natu re is such that w e crave the cru elties m en so g en ero u sly provide. W e like pain, especially in sex. W e m ake m en h u rt us. W e especially like to be forced to h ave sex w hile refu sin g to h ave it; o u r refusal

en cou rages

m en

to

use

physical

force,

violence,

and

hum iliation against us, w h ich is w h y w e refu se in the first place. A s ou r h o rm o n es secretly su rge and o u r gen es sm irk in self-satisfied delight, w e say no, intending th ro u g h

refusal to p rovok e an

antagonism su fficien tly d estru ctive to satisfy us w h en finally it is vented on us in sex. W e are h u n g ry fo r a certain vu lga r bru tality, w h ich is lucky fo r us, since w e get so m uch o f it. In m arriage, being beaten is proof to us that w e are loved. Evidence is cited o f obscure villages in rem ote places w h ere, if a m an does not beat his w ife, she feels unloved, since no w o m an at hand seem s to find it proof at all. (In those obscure villages, no d ou bt the w o m en of N e w Y o rk and D ublin are cited to the sam e en d . ) W e particularly en joy being sold on street co rn ers (does bad w e a th e r increase o u r fu n ? ). W e entice o u r fath ers to rape us, because even little girls are born w o m en . In technologically advanced societies, w e esch ew becom ing brain su rgeo n s fo r the delight o f finding p h o to grap h ers w h o will sh oot o u r genitals: cam era or gu n , w e don 't mind.

O n e thing should be clear, but apparently it is not: if this w ere indeed o ur nature, w e w ould be living in paradise.

If pain, humiliation, and physical injury made us happy, w e w ould be ecstatic.

If being sold on street corners w ere a good time, w om en w ould jam street corners the w ay m en jam football matches.

If forced sex w ere w hat w e craved, even w e w ould be satisfied already.

If being dom inated by men made us happy w e w ould smile all the time.

W om en resist male dom ination because w e do not like it.

Political w om en resist male dom ination through overt, rude, unm istakable rebellion. T h e y are called unnatural, because they do not have a nature that delights in being debased.

Apolitical w om en resist male dom ination through a host of bitter subversions, ranging from the fam ous headache to the clinical depression epidemic am ong w o m en to suicide to prescription-drug tranquilization to taking it out on the children; som etim es a battered w ife kills her husband. Apolitical w o m en are also called unnatural, the charge hurled at them as nasty or sullen or em bittered individuals, since that is h o w they fight back. T h e y too are not made happy by being h urt or dominated.

In fact, a natural w om an is hard to find. W e are dom esticated, tamed, made com pliant on the surface, th rough male force, not th rou gh nature. W e som etim es do w h a t m en say w e are, either because w e believe them or because w e hope to placate them . W e som etim es try to becom e w h at m en say w e should be, because men have po w er over o ur lives.

M ale dom ination is a system o f social institutions, sexual practices, econom ic relations, and em otional devastations. A t the sam e tim e, it is som eth in g m en do to w o m en th ro u gh com m onplace behaviors. It is not abstract or magical; and any w o m a n s life illustrates the w ays in w hich

male dom inance is used on real w o m en by real m en.

U nderlying the big social realities of male dom inance are the fleshand-blood realities o f rape, battery, prostitution, and incest, as well as being used in banal, dem eaning w a y s in sex, as dom estics, to have children for m en. W e are treated as if w e are w o rth less in h o w w e are talked to, looked at, in com m on social interchanges. T h e acts of

violence and the acts of insult are justified by the nature w e are presum ed to have: an inferior nature, specially m arked by its com pulsive need for force in sex. T h e inferiority of w o m en is best described as an im m ovable, barely com prehensible stupidity. G ettin g h urt is w h at w e w an t.

W om en do not sim ply en du re h aving this peculiar nature. W e celebrate it by actively seeking to be dom inated and hu rt, that is, fulfilled. M en only respond; w e provoke. A m an is goin g about his business, b otherin g no one, w h en a w o m an calls atten tio n to h erself— by w alking d o w n

the street, for instance. T h e m an,

inten ding no harm , tries to please the w o m an by doing to h er w h a te v e r h er lan gu age and behavior su g gest she does not w an t. A s he inflicts this kindness on her, strictly th ro u gh solicitude fo r h er real desire, indicated by her resistance and repugn an ce, he is o n ly responding to w h a t has been h e r purpose fro m the beginning: she has w an ted his atten tio n so that he w o u ld do w h a te v e r she is appearing to resist. H e k n o w s w h a t she w a n ts because he k n o w s w h a t she is.

In the w orld o f m ale dom ination, th ere are n o individual w o m en w h o are unique persons. T h e re is o n ly a generic she, freq u en tly called cunt so that w h a t defines the g en u s is clear. She is the hole b etw een h er legs. H er n atu re justifies w h a te v e r m en need to do to m ake that hole accessible to th em on their term s. She is valued insofar as m en value e n try into her. For the rest, she is decorative or does h o u sew o rk.

F em inists think that m an y o f th e so-called norm al uses o f w o m en u nd er m ale dom ination are abuses o f w o m en . T h is is because fem inists th in k th at w o m en are h u m an beings. T h is m eans that w h en a w o m an is h u rt, she is h u rt, not fulfilled. W h en she is forced, she is forced, not fulfilled. W h en she is hum iliated, she is hum iliated, not fulfilled. Inequality w ro n g s her. Pain h u rts her. E xploitation robs h e r o f h er righ ts o ver h erself. B roken bones and bruises are physical injuries, not grand iose rom antic g estu res. Fem inism is an esoteric and n asty politic, practiced o n ly by u n n atu ral w o m en w h o do not like being h u rt at all.

If w o m en are hu m an beings, as fem in ists suspect, then crim es o f violence against w o m en are h u m an righ ts violations that occur on a m assive, alm ost unim aginable scale. T h e se crim es are com m itted

m ost frequently in private, in intimacy; but they are com m itted all the time, ev ery day and every night, all o ver the w orld, by normal men.

Unbending, pow erfu l social institutions, including church and state, cloak these crim es in a protective legitim acy, so that, for instance, forced sex in m arriage is a legally secured right o f m arriage for the man,

socially acceptable, com m onplace, unrem arkable. Battery,

incest, forced pregnancy, prostitution, and rape originate in this same sanctioned ow nership o f m en over w om en. T h at ow nersh ip is both collective and class-based (men as a class o w n w om en as a class) and it is particular, private, individual, one hum an being (male) having rights over sexual and reproductive chattel (female).

In practice, a m an can rape his w ife or d aughter, beat his w ife or d aughter, or prostitute his w ife or daughter, w ith virtually no state interference, except in exceptional circum stances (for instance, if the victim dies). T h e state in fact actively supports male dom inance achieved th rou gh or expressed in violence. M arriage, for exam ple, is a legal license to rape: it is a state-backed entitlem ent to fuck a w om an w ith ou t regard for her will or integrity; and a child finds herself in the sam e feudal relationship to her father because o f his state-backed p o w er as head-of-the-household.

Som etim es, law s prohibit acts o f violence against w om en. B attery is illegal, but no police will interfere; husbands are rarely arrested for beating their w ives, even though an experim ental program in M inneapolis showed that im m ediate arrest and real convictions w ith real jail sentences had a serious impact on stopping battery. It ended the legal im punity of the batterer, and it also introduced, frequ en tly for the first tim e, the idea that it w as not natural or right for husbands to hit their w iv e s— it introduced the idea to the h u sban d / Rape is illegal. A man is not supposed to be able to rape anyon e but his o w n w ife w ith im punity. But rape is widespread, rarely even reported to the police (one in ten or eleven rapes are reported in the

In Seattle, a judge ordered the police force to enforce laws against "domestic violence," i.e. wife-battery. As a result, police began arresting any wom an w h o fought back or resisted marital rape. O n e wom an was arrested because she had scratched her husband's face when he tried to force sex on her. T he police claim they have no choice: if they m ust enforce these laws that they do not w ant to enforce, they m ust enforce them against any spouse w h o commits any act of violence. This is one example of how the legal system w orks to make reform s meaningless and wom en's rights ludicrous.

United States), m ore rarely prosecuted, and convictions are unusual and unlikely. T h is is because juries v ie w the w o m an as responsible for the sex act, no m atter h o w abu sive it is. T h e w o m a n s sexual h isto ry is explored to convict h e r o f being w anton: any sexual experience is used to sh o w that h er n atu re is responsible fo r w h a t happened to her, not the m an w h o did it.

T h e right to rape as a m ale righ t o f dom inance is n ever the issue in rape cases. H istorically, rape w a s considered a crim e against th e m an to w h o m the w o m an belonged as chattel: h er husband or h er father.

In her husband's house, she w a s private property. In her fath er's h ouse, she w a s a virgin to be sold as such to a husband. Rape w a s rath er like stealing a car and sm ashin g it in to a tree. T h e value o f the p rop erty is hurt. If th e w o m an w a s already dam aged g oo d s— not private en o u g h as p rop erty before the rapist g o t hold o f h er— or if she consented (a corpse could m eet the legal standard fo r co n sen t in a rape case)— th en the p u tative rapist w a s not responsible fo r h er lo w value and he w o u ld not be convicted o f rape. T h e w o m an as a separate hu m an being w ith righ ts o v e r h er o w n body does not exist under traditional rape law s. T h a t is w h y fem inists w a n t rape law s changed: so th at rape is a crim e against the w o m an raped, not her keeper. T h e d ifficu lty in accom plishing this is unpleasantly simple: the injuries o f rape to a h u m an being are self-evident; but th e injuries o f rape to a w o m an are not injuries at all— th ey are sexual ev e n ts that she probably liked, even initiated, no m atter h o w badly she is h u rt, w o m en being w h a t w o m en are.

In try in g

to understan d

violence against w o m en , one m u st

con sisten tly look at h o w law s w o rk , not at w h a t th ey say, to see w h e th e r th ey in fact fu rth e r violence against w o m en , regulate it (for instance, by establishing som e conditions u nd er w h ich violence is condoned and o th ers u nd er w h ich it is discouraged), o r stop it. U nder male dom ination, law virtually a lw ays fu rth e rs or regu lates violence against w o m en by keepin g w o m en su bordin ate to m en, a llo w in g or en cou ragin g violence against at least som e w o m en all the tim e, and holding w o m en responsible fo r the violence done to us w ith its doctrinal insistence th at w e actually p rovoke violence and g e t sexual pleasure fro m it.

The

fem inist

fig h t

against

violence

against

w o m en

is also

necessarily a fig h t against m ale law: because th e w a y the law really

w o rk s— in rape, battery, prostitution, and incest— w om en are its victim s.

T h e state, then, keeps w om en available to m en for abuse— that is one of its functions. T h e dom inance of men over w om en through violence is not an u nfortu n ate series o f accidents or m istakes but is instead state policy, backed by police pow er.

For conceptual clarity, I am going to divide the crim es of violence against w om en into tw o categories: simple crim es, w hich include rape, battery, incest, torture, and m urder; and com plex crimes, w hich include sexual harassm ent, prostitution, and pornography. T h ese acts are the prim ary violent abuses o f w om en in the W est. In other societies, oth er acts m ay have the same m ainstream cultural significance— for instance, clitoridectom y or infibulation or d ow ry burnings.

T h e simple crim es are acts o f violation that are relatively easy to com prehend as discrete even ts once the violation is m ade know n . T h e act is usually com m itted in privacy or in secret, but if a victim tells about it, one can see w h at happened, h o w , w hen , w h ere, for h o w long, by w hom , to w hom , even w h y . Even though these acts are com m itted so frequ en tly that th ey are com m onplace, they are usually com m itted in private, done to w om en as individuals. Each tim e a rape happens, it happens to a particular w om an , a particular child. T h ere is no sense of public contagion: rape is not experienced as spreading th rough the com m unity like cholera. T h ere is also no sense o f public en joym en t of the crim e, public com plicity, public enthusiasm .

In com plex crim es, there is contagion. T h e com m un ity kn o w s that there is a public dim ension to the abuse, that there is mass com plicity, m ass involvem ent. T h e crim es are in the public air, they happen outside the privacy o f the hom e, th ey happen to m an y nam eless, faceless w om en, w h o are m oving th ro u gh public space: m any m en are doing these things to m any w om en, all at once, not in private at all. T h ere is a sense of "everyo n e does it— so w h a t? " w ith m any of the elem ents

that distinguish

sexual harassm ent; prostitution and

p orn ography are w idely taken to be things m en need and things men u se— lots o f m en, m ost men.

T h e violence itself in a com plex crim e is a convoluted m ass of violations involving m any kinds o f sexual abuse; it is hard to pull them

apart. T h ere is a m achine-like quality to the abuse, as if w o m e n s bodies w ere on an assem bly line, g ettin g processed, gettin g used g ettin g drilled, g ettin g screw ed, g ettin g ham m ered, g ettin g checked o ver, poked, passed on.

T h e com plex crim es are done to the already disappeared, the w o m en are an onym ous; they have no personal histories that m atter and no personal qualities that can chan ge the cou rse o f events. Sexual h arassm ent, fo r instance, m akes w o m en vagabonds in the labor m arket: cheap labor, im m ediately replaceable, m oving out o f low paid job a fter lo w paid job. P rostitution and po rn ograp h y erase all personality.

In com plex crim es, there is on goin g intim idation and intricate coercion that exists on m any levels. T h e re is a profit m otive as well as a pleasure/pow er m otive: big business, one w a y o r anoth er, stands behind the abuser. T h e sim ple crim es are m ost o ften done in secret, bu t the com plex crim es h ave real social visibility. Sexu al harassm ent happens in a society o f fellow w orkers; prostitu tes h ave a social presence on the streets; the point o f p o rn ograp h y is that it is on view .

All th e sim ple and com plex crim es o f violence are also acts o f sex.

U nder m ale dom ination, th ere is no phenom enological division b etw e en sex and violence. E very crim e o f violence com m itted against a w o m an is sexual: sex is central to the targetin g o f the victim , the w a y in w h ich she is hu rt, w h y she is h u rt, the sense o f en titlem en t the m an has to do w h a t he w a n ts to her, the satisfaction the act gives him , the social support fo r the exploitation or injury. T h e social support can be m ainstream or su bterran ean, fu lly sanctioned by the system or im plicit in h o w it w orks.

In m ost crim es o f violence against w o m en , a sex act involvin g p en etration o f the w o m an , not a lw ay s vaginally, not alw ay s w ith a penis, is intrinsic to the violence o r the reason fo r it. In som e crim es of violence, fo r instance, b attery, w h ile rape is part of the lon g-term co n fig u ration o f the abuse, sex is m ore freq u en tly exh austed, brutalized com pliance; it o ccu rs as if in the e y e o f the h u rrican e— after the last beating and to try to forestall the n ext one. S o m etim es the b eating is the sexu al ev en t fo r the m an.

W h en fem inists say rape is violence, not sex, w e m ean to say that from o u r perspective as victim s o f forced sex, w e do not g et sexual pleasure from rape; co n trary to the rapist's v iew , the p o rn o g ra p h e rs view , and

the law 's view , rape is not a good tim e fo r us. This is a valiant effort at crosscultural com m unication, but it is only half the story: because for men, rape and sex are not different species of event. D om ination is sexual for m ost men, and rape, battery, incest, use of prostitutes and pornography, and sexual harassm ent are m odes of dom ination im bued w ith sexual m eaning. D om ination is p o w er over others and also hostility tow ard and dehum anization of the pow erless. T h e dom ination o f m en o ver w om en is both expressed and achieved th rou gh sex as men experience sex, not as w om en w ish it w ould be. This m eans that w e have to recognize that sex and violence are fused for men into dom inance; and that not only is violence sexual* but also sex is consistently used to assert dom inance.

T h is is a desperate and tragic reality. T h o se closest to u s— those inside u s— cannot separate sex and violence, because for them they are not separate: the fusion o f sex and violence is the dom inance that gives them pleasure. O u r lives are held hostage to this pleasure they want. Rape, battery, incest, torture, m urder, sexual harassm ent, prostitution, and pornography are acts of real violence against us enjoyed by our husbands, fathers, sons, brothers, lovers, teachers, and friends. T h ey call these acts by d ifferen t nam es w h en they do them .

Pornography

especially sh o w s

h o w dom inance and abuse are

pleasure and entertainm ent. In the United States, p orn ography saturates the en viron m en t, private and public. In Ireland, access to it is m ore restricted at this time; and yet, videos sh o w in g the torture of w om en, allowable under Irish censorship law s because video is not covered, have reached an avid population o f male consum ers. N o tim e to develop an appetite fo r the violence w as required. N orm al m en, having rights of sexual dom inance, took to tortu re videos like ducks to w ater. Pornography is central to m ale dom inance, even w h en

N ew experim ental research in the United States show s that films show ing extrem e and horrific violence against wom en that are not sexually explicit sexually stimulated nearly a third of the men w h o watched them. T h e films are called "splatter" films. T h ey are made from the point of view of the killer as he stalks a female victim. She ends up splattered. T he researchers told me that they could not construct a film scenario of violence against w om en that did not sexually stimulate a significant percentage of male viewers.

access to it is limited, because ev ery form o f sexual abuse is implicated in it and it is implicated in ev ery form o f sexual abuse; and it is apprehended by m en as pure pleasure.

In the United States, perhaps th ree-qu arters o f the w o m en in p orn ography are incest victim s. W om en are recruited th ro u gh being raped and beaten. Forced sex is filmed; so is torture, g an g rape, battery; and the film s are used (as blackm ail, sexual hum iliation, and threat) to keep n e w

w o m en in prostitution. O n ce season ed /

prostitu tes are used in film s as th eir pim ps d eterm ine. Rapes o f w o m en w h o are not prostitutes, not ru n a w a y children, not on the streets to stay, are film ed and sold on the com m ercial po rn ograp h y m arket. P orn o graph y has actually introduced a profit m otive into rape. W om en in po rn ograp h y are penetrated by anim als and objects.

W om en are urinated on and defecated on. All of these th in gs are done to real w o m en in porn ograph y; then the po rn ograp h y is used so that these acts are com m itted against o th er real w o m en .

T h e w o rth lessn ess o f w o m en as h u m an beings is en tirely clear w hen

it is understood

that p o rn o g rap h y is a form

o f m ass

en tertain m en t, in the U nited States n o w gro ssin g an estim ated eight billion dollars a year. M en , the prim ary con su m ers of po rn ograp h y, are entertain ed b y th ese acts o f sexual abuse.

T h e lives o f w o m en are circum scribed by the terrorism of p orn ograph y, because it is the distilled y e t en tirely trivialized terro r of rape, b attery, incest, tortu re, and m u rd er— w o m en are objects, not hum an, assaulted and h u rt, used in sex, because m en w a n t and like sexual dom inance. P orn o g rap h y is the p rostitu tion of th e w o m en in it, and it is a m etaphysical definition o f all w o m en as w h o re s b y nature; so it is also the te rro r o f being bo rn to be used, traded, and sold. T h e substance o f this terro r— its details, its am biance— is the pleasure, is the en tertain m en t, fo r the m en w h o w atch . It is hard to im agine h o w m uch th e y hate us.

It is also difficult to u nderstand

how

absolutely, resolutely

in d ifferen t to o u r rights th ey are. Y e t these m en w h o like to see us "Seasoning" is the process of m aking a w om an or a girl into a compliant prostitute. It usually involves raping her, having her gang-raped, druggin g her, beating her, repeated and purposeful humiliation. It often involves filming these acts, sh ow ing her the film (making her w atch herself), and threatening to send the pictures to her family or school.

being used or hu rt are not indifferent to rights as such: they guard their ow n . T h e y claim, for instance, that in being entertained by pornography they are exercising rights of theirs, especially rights of expression or speech. H o w is it possible that in w atch ing rape— or, frankly, in w atching fem ale genitals, w om en's legs splayed— they are exercising rights of speech? It m ust be that our pain is w h at they w a n t to say. Perhaps our genitals are w ords th ey use. Incom pre­ hensible as it m ay be to us, their enjoym ent in o ur abuse is articulated as a civil liberty of theirs. T h e logic of the argum ent is that if their rights to pornography (to possession, exploitation, and abuse of us) are abrogated, they will be unable to say w h a t th ey w a n t to say. T h e y m ust have "freedom o f speech. " Also, the sexual exploitation of w o m en is held to be "sexual liberation. " T h e uses of w om en in porn ography are considered "liberating. " W hat is done to us is called "sexual freedom . " O u r abuse has becom e a standard o f freed om — the m eaning of freedom — the requisite for freedom — th ro u gh o u t m uch o f the W estern w orld.

Being hurt, being threatened w ith physical injury as a condition of life, being system atically exploited, has profoundly disturbing effects o n people. T h e y get num b; th ey despair; th ey are often ignoble, becom ing indifferent to the su fferin g of others in their same situation. People are also kn o w n to fight oppression and to hate cruelties th ey are forced to endure; but w o m en are supposed to enjoy being hurt, being used, being made inferior. T h e rem edies historically used by oppressed peoples to figh t dom ination and terror are not supposed to be available to w om en: because w h a t is done to us is supposed to be appropriate to w h a t w e are— women. G od, nature, and m en concur.

B ut som etim es w e dissent. W e see the violence done to us as violence, not love, not rom ance, not inevitable and natural, not our fate, not to be endured and suffered th ro u gh , not w h a t w e are for because o f w h a t w e are.

Fem inists call this o ften painful process o f learning to see w ith o ur o w n eyes consciousness-raising. W e discard the eyes o f m en, w hich had becom e o u r eyes. W e break the isolation that violence creates; w e find o u t from each o th er h o w m uch w e are treated the sam e, h o w m uch

w e h ave in com m on in h o w w e are used, the acts of insult and injury com m itted against us because w e are w om en.

Consciousness m eans that w e h ave developed an acute aw aren ess of both o u r su fferin g and o u r hum anity: w h a t happens to us and w h at w e have a right to. W e k n o w w e are hum an and so the su fferin g (inferior status, exploitation, sexual abuse) is an intolerable series of violation s that m ust be stopped. Experiencing su fferin g as su ch — instead o f becom ing num b— forces us to act hum an: to resist oppression, to dem and fairness, to create n ew social arran gem en ts that include us as hum an. W hen h u m an s rebel against su fferin g, the h eroes o f history, k n o w n and u n k n o w n , are born.

S o even th ou gh w o m en are expected to en joy being used and being h urt, w o m en resist; w o m en fig h t back; w o m en organize; w o m en are brave; w o m en g o up against m ale p o w e r and stop it in its tracks; w o m en figh t institutions of male dom inance and w eaken them ; w o m en create social and political conflict, so that m ale p o w e r is challenged and hurt; w o m en retaliate against rapists and batterers and pimps; w o m en infiltrate m ale system s o f pow er; w o m en ch ange law s to ben efit w o m en and increase o u r rights; w o m e n provide secret refu g e fo r battered w o m en and above-groun d advocacy fo r rape victim s and abortions fo r pregn an t w o m en w h o need help; w o m en create w o r k and w ealth for o th er w o m en to su bvert the econom ic hold m en have o v e r w o m en ; som etim es w o m en kill; w o m en sit-in and picket and com m it civil disobedience to d estroy p orn ograph ers and m ilitarists; w o m en sue to stop sex discrim ination; w o m en claim m ore and m ore public space to ch an ge the co n figu ration s o f public p ow er; fem inists keep refinin g the targets, so that w e attack m ale p o w e r w h e re it is m ost vu lnerable and w h e re w e can best am ass collective stren g th in o u r respective countries; fem inists g o at m ale p o w e r w h e re it is m ost d an gero u s, so h ea vy on top th at it m u st topple o v e r if w e push hard en ou gh ; fem inists keep thinking, w ritin g, talking, organ izin g, m arching, d em on stratin g, w ith m ilitance and patience and a rebelliousness that burns. T h e figh t is hard and u gly and deadly serious. So m etim es w o m en are killed. O fte n , w o m e n are h u rt.

V en g ean ce

against

w o m en

is

real,

physical,

econom ic,

psychological: sw ift and cruel. Still: w o m e n resist, w o m en figh t back, w o m en w a n t to w in .

W h at w e w a n t to w in is called freed o m or justice w h e n th ose being

system atically hurt are not w om en. W e call it equality, because our enem ies are family. N o violent reform will w o rk for us, no bloody coup followed by another regim e o f illegitim ate power: because our en em y is family; and w e cannot simply wipe him out and kill him dead.

T h e burden is very great. Because the en em y is fam ily, and because he is so cruel and so arrogant and so intim ate and so close, because he smiles w h en w e hurt and pays m oney to be entertained by ou r abuse, w e kn o w w e have to go to the roots o f violence, the roots of dom ination, the roots of w h y p ow er gives pleasure and h o w h ierarchy creates exploitation. W e k n o w w e have to level social hierarchies. W e kn o w w e have to d estroy the pleasure and possibility o f sexual dom ination. W e kn o w w e have to raise ourselves up and pull m en dow n, not tenderly. W e k n o w w e have to end the violence against us by ending the rights o f m en over us. T h ere is no friendly dom ination, no self-respecting subm ission.

Violence against w om en hurts the heart, also the bones. Feminists are unnatural w om en w h o do not like being h u rt at all.

Preface to the British Edition of Right-wing Women

Someone at The Womens Press in London, a publishing company I esteem, wrote me a fairly condescending letter (in apparent response to R ig h t-w in g W o m en , which The Womens Press was publishing) in which she explained to me that in England right-wing women were women who wore hats and were prudes and fascists and left-wing women, in England, didn't and weren't. In these terms (honest) she tried to explain right-wing and left-wing to me, the simple-minded colonial. I had been asked to write an introduction to R ig h t-w in g W o m e n for England so I wrote this essay on Left and Right, the origins and meaning of each.

I thought my correspondent could use the information. This essay has never been published in the United States.

R

"

ig h t "

a n d " L e f t " as m ean in gfu l political designations originated

in th e com plicated co u rse o f th e French R evolu tion . M ost

probably, the first physical a rra n g em en t from

righ t to left of

parliam en tary rep resen tatives occu rred on S ep tem b er 1 1 , 178 9, w h e n the N ational A ssem b ly, th e parliam en tary body o f re v o lu 足 tion ary France, w a s arranged physically to reflect political ideology and class loyalty. R oyalists w e re seated on the right; p resu m ably Jacobins w e re on th e fa r left. T h o se on the right, w h o m ostly favo red a bicam eral legislative system in the grip o f a m on arch 's absolute v e to p o w er, w e re called A n glom an iacs o r M on archicals o r just plain "E n glish m en . " T h o se on the left g o t m uch o f th eir inspiration fro m the recen t A m erican R evo lu tio n o f 177 6 .

By 1 8 15 , the Second R estoration u nd er Louis XVIII, "R ig h t" and

"L eft" w ere accepted, com m only understood political term s rooted in French

legislative

practice.

France

finally

had

its English-like

parliament and a n ew m onarch to go w ith it. M em bers o f the legislature sat in a semi-circle. O n the right sat the ultra-royalists, called the Ultras, "m ore royalist than the king and m ore catholic than the pope" according to one pundit. T h ey represented the interests of the land-owning aristocracy, form er em igres, and clergy. T h ey w ere the party of victorious counter-revolution. O n the left sat the Independents, a m ixture o f Bonapartists, Liberals, and Republicans, all antipathetic to the current m onarch but w ith varyin g degrees of com m itm ent to the egalitarian goals of the Revolution. In the center sat the Constitutionalists, those w h o w anted a little of this and a little o f that.

Political ideas and political values w ere explicitly characterized as "R ight" or "L eft" or "C en trist. " "R ight" w as the term w ith the absolute m eaning. It really did m ean "m ore royalist than the king": "Long live the king, despite h im self" w as one Ultra slogan. All oth er political positions w ere in som e sense defined relative to the Right.

W ith the Jacobins purged from French politics, the Left w as a shadow Left. N ot w anting a king (or a particular king) w as not the sam e as dem anding an egalitarian social order by any m eans necessary. T h e values o f the R ight w ere fixed and clear. T h e values of the Left w e re subject to negotiation and convenience. T his led, in part, to the rise of the Em peror Bonaparte.

T h e term s "R ight" and "L eft" are genu inely m odern referents.

T h e y do not travel back in time very well, especially in England or the United States. In England the m odern party system began to develop a fter 1783, but political parties as such did not becom e stron g until after 1830. T h e vaguer, less program m atic w ord "conservative" did not com e into use until 1824, w h en a coalition of W higs and Tories used it to indicate their antagonism to revolution ary France. T h e T ories adopted it for them selves in 1830. It is perhaps a reasonable convenience to think of Tories and W higs com pared w ith each oth er as conservatives and liberals respectively, but both w e re m onarchists w ith all the loyalties to class and property therein implied; a n d so both w ere, in the original French sense, rightists. T h e French w e re not being facetious w h en th ey called their o w n royalists A nglom aniacs or "Englishm en. "

The

n ew

A m ericans, on

the o th er hand, w ere all resolute

republicans. N one o f the founding fath ers w as w illing to tolerate m on archy or any institution that resem bled m onarchy. A nd yet m an y w e re w h a t w e w ould call conservative. T h e y w an ted to replicate the stability of the English system . T h e y w anted a social ord er that protected prop erty and w ealth. T h e y w e re republicans but th ey certainly w e re not dem ocrats. T h e idea o f egalitarian dem ocracy repelled them . A lexan d er H am ilton, fo r instance, insisted on "a g o v e rn m en t w h o lly and pu rely republican" and y et he considered the French R evolu tion a "d isgustin g spectacle. " He, like o th er A m erican con servatives, w as an A nglophile. T h o m as Jefferson, by contrast, w as a liberal, a dem ocrat. For him , a function o f g o v ern m e n t w a s to p rom ote equality. H e, typical of the egalitarians, w as a Francophile.

B ut in the n e w political g eo g rap h y o f the n e w U nited States th ere w as no R igh t o r L eft in the French sense because there w e re no m onarchists at all.

T h e political concepts o f "R ig h t" and "L eft" could not have originated in England or the U nited States: th ey com e o u t o f the specificity o f the French experience. T h e y w e re born in th e chaos of the first fu lly m odern revolution , the French R evolution, in reaction to w h ich all Europe su bsequ en tly redefined itself. A s a direct result of the French R evolu tion , the political face o f Europe changed and so did the political discourse o f Europeans. O n e fu n dam ental ch a n g e w a s the form al division o f values, parties, and program s into "R ig h t" and "L e ft"— m odern alliances and allegiances em erged, heralded by n ew , m odern categories o f organized political th o u g h t. W h at had started in France's

N ational

A ssem b ly

as

perhaps

an

exped ient

seating

arra n g em en t fro m righ t to left becam e a nearly m etaphysical political con stru ction th at sw ep t W estern political consciou sness and practice.

In part this aston ishing d evelo p m en t w a s accom plished th ro u gh th e ex tre m e reaction against th e French R evo lu tio n em bodied especially in vitriolic d enunciation s o f it by politicians in England and else w h e re com m itted to m on arch y, the class system , and the valu es im plicit in feudalism . T h eir a rg u m e n ts against the French R evo lu tio n and in behalf o f m o n arch y fo rm the basis fo r m od ern rig h t-w in g politics, o r conservatism . T h e principles o f organ ized co n servatism , its social, econom ic, and m oral values, w e re en un ciated in a grea t body o f reaction ary polem ic, m ost in stru m en tally in the E nglish W h ig

Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France. W ritten in 1789 before the ascendancy of the Jacobins— and therefore not in response to the T error or to Jacobin ideological absolutism — Burke's Reflections is suffused w ith fu ry at the audacity of the Revolution itself because this revolution uniquely insisted that political freedom required som e m easure of civil, econom ic, and social equality. T h e linking of freedom w ith equality philosophically or program m atically rem ains anathem a to conservatives today. Freedom , according to Burke, required hierarchy and order. T h at w as his enduring them e.

"I flatter m yself, " Burke w r o te / "that I love a m anly, moral, regulated liberty. " "M anly" liberty is bold, resolute, not effem inate or tim orous (following a dictionary definition o f the adjective "manly").

"M an ly" liberty (following Burke) has a king. "M an ly" liberty is authoritarian:

the

authority

of

the

kin g— his

so vereign ty—

presum ably guarantees the liberty of everyon e else by arcane analogy. "M oral" liberty is the w orship of God and property, especially as they m erge in the institutional church. "M oral" liberty m eans respect for the authority of God and king, especially as it m anifests in feudal hierarchy. "Regulated" liberty is limited liberty: w h a tever is left over once the king is obeyed, G od is worshipped, property is respected, hierarchy is honored, and the taxes or tributes that support all these institutions are paid. T h e liberty Burke loved particularly depended on the w illingness of persons not just to accept but to love the social circum stances into w hich they w ere born: "T o be attached to the subdivision, to love the little platoon w e belong to in society, is the first principle (the germ as it w ere) o f public affections.

It is the first link in the series by w hich w e proceed tow ards a love to our co u n try and to m ankind. " T h e French rabble had noticeably violated this first principle o f public affections.

T o Burke, history show ed that m onarchy and the rights of Englishm en w ere com pletely intertw ined so that the one required the other. Because certain rights had been exercised under m onarchy, Burke held that m onarchy w as essential to the exercise of those rights. England had no proof, according to Burke, that righ ts could exist and be exercised w ith ou t m onarchy. B urke indicted political theorists w h o claimed that there w e re natural rights o f m en that * All quotes from Burke are from Reflections on the Revolution in France (1789).

superseded in im portance the rights of existing g overn m en ts. T h e se theorists "have w ro u g h t under-grou nd a m ine that will blow up, at one grand explosion, all exam ples o f antiqu ity, all precedents, charters, and acts o f parliam ent. T h e y have 'rig h ts of m en/ A gain st these there can be no prescription: against these no arg u m en t is b in d in g ... I have noth ing to say to the clu m sy subtilty o f their political m etaphysicks. " In B u r k e s m ore agile m etaphysics, h ered itary rights w ere transm itted th ro u gh a h ered itary cro w n because th ey had been before and so w ou ld co ntinu e to be. B urke provided no basis for evaluating the quality or fairness of the rights o f "th e little platoon w e belong to in society" as opposed to the rights o f o th er little platoons: to adm it such a necessity w ould not be loving o u r little platoon en ough. T h e h ered itary cro w n , B urke su ggests, restrains dictatorship because it gives the king obeisance w ith o u t m aking him figh t fo r it. It also inhibits civil conflict o ver w h o the ruler will be. T h is is as close as B urke g ets to a su bstan tive explanation of why righ ts and m on archy are inextricably linked.

Liberties are described as property: "an entailed inheritance, " "an estate specially belonging to the people of this kingdom , w ith o u t a n y referen ce w h a te v e r to a n y o th er m ore general or prior righ t. " T h e feudal righ t to p rop erty is in fact the unim peachable right, and liberties are seen to depend on the secu rity o f prop erty. A lo n g w ith prop erty,

appropriate

liberties

are

passed

from

gen eratio n

to

generation: liberties apportioned by o n e s relationship to p rop erty.

T h is is the essen ce o f a stable social order. A n y freed om that w o u ld challenge or d estroy the prim acy and sanctity o f inherited p rop erty w as freedom outside the bounds o f "m anly, m oral, regulated lib erty. " Burke noted that in the N ational A ssem b ly "liberty is a lw ays to be estim ated perfect as p rop erty is rendered in secu re. " His o w n view w as the opposite.

Religion w a s instru m ental in keeping a society civilized, w ellordered, m oral. M orality w as in fact an acceptance o f the social o rd er as G o d -given . T h e atheism of the French revolution aries and natural rights philosophers w as perverse, an aberration: "W e k n o w , and it is o u r pride to k n o w , that m an is by his co n stitu tio n a religious anim al; that atheism is against, not only o u r reason but o u r instincts; and that it cann ot prevail lo n g . " T h e institutional ch u rch provided occasions for som ber expression s of acquiescence: and the institutional ch u rch

w as the vehicle of a m orality that w as both absolute and congruent w ith the existing social order. B u rk e s religion had nothing to do with the com passionate side of m orality; it had to do w ith p ow er and m oney. In a special fren zy of repugnance he insisted that the Jews— through the French R evolution— w ere attem pting to destroy the C h u rch o f England. M ore com m only, he likened the despised French rabble to Jews. T h e religion Burke upheld w as the religion of A nglo-Saxon pow er, the religion of king and property.

Implicit in all the above positions and explicitly articulated as such w as B u rk es contem pt for dem ocracy. D em ocracy, he held, w as syn on ym ous w ith tyrann y or led inevitably to it. In dem ocracy he discerned true oppression. " O f this I am certain, " he w ro te, "that in a dem ocracy the m ajority o f citizens is capable of exercising the m ost cruel oppressions upon the m inority. " C ru el oppressions did not trouble him if th ey w ere exercised on a m ajority by a well-dressed, elegant m inority ("To make us love our cou ntry, o ur co u n try ough t to be lovely"). He objected to the m ajority itself, not its num bers so m uch as its nature: "w hat sort of a thing m ust be a nation o f gross, stupid, ferocious, and, at the sam e time, poor and sordid barbarians, destitute of religion, honour, or m anly pride, possessing nothing at present, and hoping for nothing h ereafter? " His view of M arie A n toin ette had a d ifferent tone: "I th ou ght ten thousand sw ords m ust have leaped from the scabbards to aven ge even a look that threatened her w ith insult. " Equality m eant that "a king is but a man, a queen is but a w o m an , " w hich w as even m ore degrading than it w ould seem on the surface because "a w om an is but an animal; and an anim al not of the highest order. " Equality then w as particularly bad luck for a queen. Equality also m eant that "the m urder of a king, or a queen, or a bishop, or a father, are only com m on hom icide. " Equality m eant the end o f the w orld as Burke kn ew it, the end o f king, church, property, and entailed liberties, the end o f "m anly" pride and "m anly" liberty. But Burke w as a shade too pessimistic. "M an ly" pride and "m anly" liberty have survived every revolution so far. Equality has not yet destroyed all Burke's w orld.

T h e Right has not changed m uch since Burke w ro te. It still defends au th o rity, hierarchy, property, and religion. It still abhors egalitarian political ideas and m ovem ents. It still doesn't like Jews.

In the United States there n ever w as a king, but there w e re m any obvious su rrogates in w h o m

im perial p o w er w as vested: from

slaveholder to husband. T o d ay the au th o rity the Right d efends is the "m an ly" au th o rity o f the President, the P entagon, the FBI and C IA , police p o w er in general, the m ale religious leader, and the husband in the m ale-dom inated fam ily. T h e O ld R ight w as co n ten t to defend the "m an ly" au th o rity o f the m ilitary, the police, oligarchal racist legislators, a stron g (even if corrupt) ch ief execu tive, and the U S A as a su perpow er. It took m ore privatized expressions of "m an ly" a u th o rity en tirely for granted. T h e N e w R ight, w h ich arose in reaction to the W o m e n s M ovem en t, is distinguished from the O ld R igh t by its political

m ilitancy

on

so-called

social

issu es— w o m e n s

rights,

abortion, and hom osexu ality, fo r instance. T h e N e w R igh t has particularly em phasized the im portance o f the a u th o rity o f the husband and the androcentric church. A u th o rity itself is seen as male, and the rebellion o f w o m en th reaten s au th o rity as such w ith dissolution. In N e w R ight logic, an y w eaken in g o f the h u sb a n d s a u th o rity o ver the w ife is a w eaken in g o f au th o rity per se, a w eak en in g o f the a u th o rity of the nation and the institutions that properly g o v e rn it.

In the U nited States, the h ierarch y the R ight defen ds is rich o ver poor, w h ite o ver black, m an o ver w o m an . T h e re is a freq u en tly articulated belief that social inequality sim ply exp resses natural or G o d -g iven

differences;

that

h ierarch y

is

unchangeable.

It

is

freq u en tly argued that those w h o w a n t equality w a n t to ch ange "th e n atu re o f m an . " Stalin's m ass m urders are freq u en tly pointed to as the logical co nsequ ence o f tryin g to forge a classless society, a society that repudiates h ierarchy.

C lass as such fu n ction s d ifferen tly in the United States than it does in England. In the U nited States there is no feudal history. T h e re are no aristocrats. O n e can n ot be titled in the U nited States and also be a citizen. T h ere is great m obility from class to class: both u pw ard and d o w n w a rd . C h a n g e o f class can occu r in a generation. M o n ey and p rop erty d eterm ine class, individual to individual: it is not a statu s passed on from gen eratio n to generation; it is not necessarily familial.

M o n e y and p rop erty ch a n g e hands w ith m ore fluidity and freq u en cy than in co u n tries w ith a feudal history. T h e ruling class in th e U nited States, the small n u m b er o f fam ilies w h o control m ost o f the real

w ealth, has no relationship at all to kings or landed aristocracy: these people are ruthless, self-m ade m erchants w h o are pow erful because th ey control capital; they have no cultural, em otional, genetic, or historical claim to being elite or noble. In the United States people do not habitually becom e w h a t their parents w ere. People m ove frequently, so there is little sense of influence being handed dow n.

In the United States race fixes one's "class" status m ore certainly than any oth er factor. V irulent w hite suprem acy determ ines that black unem ploym ent passes from generation to generation: also inherited are illiteracy, poverty, isolation in ghettos, and life lived on the m argins o f survival. T h e w h ite middle class is h uge, encom pass­ ing about eighty percent of w hites. M ovem en t into it is not difficult (compared w ith any analogous m ovem ent in England or Europe) for w hites. "M iddle class" is determ ined by m on ey m ore than by kind of labor— though this could be argued. O n e could say that m any w orking-class m en (especially skilled laborers) tend to have middleclass children (monied, educated). Blacks do not have this same mobility: and there is a black lumpen, at a dead end o f possibility, w h o inherit despair in an oth erw ise vigorous society. It is not possible to o verstate h o w racist the so-called class structure in the United States actually is.

In the United States, the Right's defense o f property includes, for instance, the recent cam paign to keep the Panama C anal as United States property. T he R ight sees United States econom ic and military im perialism as a necessary defense of United States property interests— w h eth er the property is V iet Nam or El Salvador. T h e United States has property w h ere the United States does business, w h e rev er that is. O il that the United States needs rests on United States property w h erev er it happens to be. Europe is United States property if the United States w an ts to base missiles there. A n y place the Soviets are— including any barren rock in A fg h an istan — is United States property w aiting to be rescued from foreign invasion. United States property includes the m ultinational corporation, the factory, and the sw eatshop. W om en and children are also property: fenced in, guarded, frequ en tly invaded.

Religion is fundam entalist, orthodox, essential to the Right's political agenda. T h e m oral order and the social order are supposed to m irror each other: authority, hierarchy, and prop erty are G od -given

values, not to be com prom ised by secular hum anists, atheists, or liberals w h o have perverse ideas about equality. In the United States, religion is a political arm o f the N e w Right. A ntiabortion political action is organized in churches; g ay rights legislation is d efeated by religious leaders organ izin g against sin; equal rights legislation for w o m en is opposed on theological grou n d s. T h e husband is likened to C h rist, and legislation is introduced in the United States C o n g re ss to see that the simile becom es en forceable public policy. Battered w o m en are called "ru n a w a y w iv es" w h en th ey do get a w a y and are denounced for being insufficiently subm issive: escape is im m oral.

Sexually harassed w o m en are faulted fo r not being "v irtu o u s. " D epictions o f m en and w o m en in school books are supposed to co n form to fundam entalist dicta fo r m en and w om en: the w ife is to be sh o w n in the full splendor o f her d om esticity. T h e fam ily is intended to be a feudal unit in this political passion play: and religion is a fu n dam ental and politically effective tool in this program of dom estic repression and social control.

In the United States, the R ight is especially concerned w ith opposing equality as a social goal. It stands against w h a t M arg aret Papandreou has called "th e dem ocratic fam ily, " a fam ily not based on the subordination of w o m en but instead on equality, cooperation, and reciprocity. It stands against all program m atic effo rts to achieve racial and econom ic equality. It stands against sex equality as idea and as practice. It seeks to d estro y a n y m ovem en t, program , law , discourse, o r sentim en t that w ou ld end, injure, or u nderm ine m ale dom inance o v e r w o m en .

T h e co n tem p o rary R ight in the U nited States is B u rke th ro u gh and th rou gh : au th o rity, h ierarchy, prop erty, and religion are w h a t it is for; d em ocracy is w h a t it is against. It is eig h te e n th -ce n tu ry co n servatism alm ost w ith o u t revision. Except. Except that it has m obilized w o m en , w hich B u rke did not do in the eigh teen th cen tu ry.

Except that it has succeeded in o rgan izin g w o m en into rig h t-w in g activists. Except that it has succeeded in g ettin g women as women (w om en w h o claim to be acting in the interests of w o m en as a group) to act e ffectively in behalf o f m ale a u th o rity o ver w o m en , in behalf of a h ierarch y in w h ich w o m en are su b servien t to m en, in beh alf of w o m en as the righ tfu l p rop erty o f m en, in beh alf of religion as an expression o f tran scen den t m ale su prem acy. It has succeeded in

gettin g w om en to act effectively against their o w n dem ocratic inclusion in the political process, against their o w n civil equality, against any egalitarian conception of their o w n w orth. This book accepts a fairly orthodox definition o f righ t-w in g values and ideas (as outlined in this preface) and asks w h y w om en are prom oting those values and ideas, since the auth ority they are defending consistently degrades them , the hierarchy th ey are defending puts them on the bottom , the right to property they are defending deprives them of full hum an standing, the religion th ey are defending insists that they m ust subject them selves to petty and often violent tyranny, and the equality they oppose is the only rem edy. W h y do right-w ing w om en agitate for their o w n subordination? H o w does the Right, controlled by m en, enlist their participation and loyalty? And w h y do right-w in g w om en tru ly hate the fem inist struggle for equality?

O n e fem inist w riter has called this book "a subtle discourse on com plicity. " T h e com plicity is not limited to w om en on the organized Right. A prem ise o f this book is that righ t-w in g w om en are w om en w h o accept the legitim acy o f sex hierarchy, male authority, and w om en as property in any w a y no m atter w h at th ey call them selves.

T h e sam e definition o f "righ t-w in g" obtains fo r m en. T h e question then m ay w ell be: can anyone find the Left?

A ndrea D w orkin N e w Y ork C ity February 1983

T HE

NEW

T E R R O R I S M

If you can't stand the heat, step down from the stake.

Robin Morgan, "Jottings of a Feminist Activist" in Lady of the Beasts

Pornography: The New Terrorism

This is the first speech I ever gave that dealt exclusively with the subject of pornography. Maybe seventy-five students heard it at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst in the dead of winter, early 19 7 7. They mobilized on the spot to demonstrate against the pornography being shown on campus: a film advertised in the school newspaper (see T h e P o w e r o f W o rd s for more information about this newspaper) that had been brought on campus by a man who had just been arrested for beating the woman he lived with. Do you know how badly she had to be hurt for him to be arrested back in 19 77? I gave this speech on lots of college campuses and in every case students organized to do something about pornography after hearing it. In December 1 9 7 8 , 1 gave it at a conference at the New York University Law School. A news story in T h e N ew Y o rk T im e s noted that people rose to their feet, many crying, and that one famous civil liberties lawyer walked out, refusing to listen. After that, within the month, T h e N ew Y o rk T im e s published two editorials quoting from this speech and denouncing feminists for being "overwrought"and "strident." I wrote a response (see F o r M e n , F reed o m o f S p e e c h ; F o r W o m e n , S ile n ce P lease) but T h e N ew Y o rk T im e s refused to publish it. According to the reporter who wrote the news story, it became T im e s policy not to cover newsworthy events involving feminists opposing pornography because such coverage would "hurt the First Amendment." We were pretty effectively boycotted by the T im e s , the so-called newspaper of record. We know a lot more now about how pornography hurts women, why it is so pernicious; but this speech was a conceptual breakthrough that helped change the terms of the argument.

The new terms mobilized women to action.

A

l l t h r o u g h h u m an history, there h ave been terrible, cruel

w rongs. T h ese w ro n gs w ere not com m itted on a small scale.

T h ese w ro n g s w ere not rarities or oddities. T h ese w ro n gs have raged

o ver the earth like w in d-sw ept fires, m aim ing, destroying, leaving hum ans turned to ash. Slavery, rape, torture, exterm ination have been the substance o f life for billions of hum an beings since the beginning o f patriarchal time. Som e have battened on atrocity w hile oth ers have suffered from it until they died.

In any given time, m ost people have accepted the cruellest w rongs as right. W hether through indifference, ignorance, or brutality, m ost people, oppressor and oppressed, have apologized for atrocity, defended it, justified it, excused it, laughed at it, or ignored it.

T h e oppressor, the one w h o perpetrates the w ro n g s for his ow n pleasure or profit, is the m aster inventor of justification. He is the magician w ho, out of thin air, fabricates w ondrous, imposing, seem ingly irrefutable intellectual reasons w hich explain w h y one grou p m ust be degraded at the hands of another. He is the conjurer w h o takes the sm oking ash o f real death and turns it into stories, poem s, pictures, w hich celebrate degradation as life's central truth.

He is the illusionist w h o paints m utilated bodies in chains on the interior canvas of the im agination so that, asleep or aw ake, w e can only hallucinate indignity and outrage. He is the m anipulator of psychological reality, the fram er of law, the engineer of social necessity, the architect o f perception and being.

T h e oppressed are encapsulated by the culture, laws, and values of the oppressor. T h eir behaviors are controlled by law s and traditions based on their presum ed inferiority. T h e y are, as a m atter of course, called abusive nam es, presum ed to have low or disgusting personal and collective traits. T h e y are alw ays subject to sanctioned assault.

T h e y are surrounded on ev ery side by im ages and echoes of their ow n w orthlessness. Involuntarily, unconsciously, not know in g anything else, th ey have branded into them , burned into their brains, a festering self-hatred, a virulent self-contem pt. T h ey have burned out o f them the militant dignity on w hich all self-respect is based.

O ppressed

people are not subjugated or controlled • by dim

w arnings or vague threats of harm . T h eir chains are not m ade of shadow s. O ppressed people are terrorized— by raw violence, real

violence, unspeakable and pervasive violence. T h eir bodies are assaulted and despoiled, according to the will of the oppressor.

T h is

violence

is a lw ays

accom panied

by

cultural

assau lt—

propaganda disguised as principle o r know led ge. T h e p u rity o f the " A ry a n " or C aucasian race is a favo rite principle. G en etic inferiority is a favorite field o f know led ge. Libraries a re full of erudite texts that prove, beyond a sh ad ow o f a doubt, that Jews, the Irish, M exicans, blacks,

h om osexuals,

w o m en

are

slime.

T h ese

eloquent

and

resou rcefu l proofs are classified as psychology, th eology, econom ics, philosophy, history, sociology, the so-called science o f biology.

Som etim es, often , th ey are m ade into stories or poem s and called art.

D egrad ation

is

dignified

as

biological,

econom ic, o r

historical

necessity; or as the logical consequence o f the repulsive traits or inh eren t lim itations o f the ones degraded. O u t on the streets, the propaganda takes a m ore vu lga r form . Signs read "W h ites O n ly " or "Jews and D o g s N o t A llo w ed . " H isses o f kike, nigger, qu eer, and pussy fill the air. In this propaganda, the victim is m arked. In this propaganda, the victim is targeted. T h is propaganda is the glo ve that co vers the fist in an y reign o f terror.

T h is propaganda does not o n ly sanction violence against the designated group; it incites it. T h is propaganda does not only threaten assault; it prom ises it.

T h ese are the dreaded im ages o f terror.

— A Jew, em aciated, behind barbed w ire, nearly naked, m utilated by the knife o f a N azi doctor: th e atrocity is acknow ledged.

— A V ietn am ese, in a tiger cage, n early naked, bones tw isted and broken, flesh black and blue: the atro city is acknow ledged.

— A black slave on an A m erikan plantation, nearly naked, chained, flesh ripped up from the w hip: the atro city is acknow led ged.

— A w o m an , nearly naked, in a cell, chained, flesh ripped up from the w hip, breasts m utilated by a knife: she is en tertain m en t, the boynext-d o o r's fa vo rite fan tasy, e v e ry m a n s precious right, ev ery w o m a n s potential fate.

T h e w o m an tortured is sexual en tertain m en t.

T h e w o m an tortured is sexu ally arou sing.

T h e anguish o f the w o m an to rtu red is sexually exciting.

T h e degradation of the w om an tortured is sexually entrancing.

T h e humiliation of the w om an tortured is sexually pleasing, sexually thrilling, sexually gratifying.

W om en are a degraded and terrorized people. W om en are degraded and terrorized by men. Rape is terrorism . W ife-beating is terrorism .

Medical butchering is terrorism . Sexual abuse in its hundred million form s is terrorism .

W om en s bodies are possessed by men. W om en are forced into involuntary childbearing because m en, not w o m e n , control w o m e n s reproductive functions. W om en are an enslaved population— the crop w e harvest is children, the fields w e w o rk are houses. W om en are forced into com m itting sexual acts w ith men that violate integrity because the universal religion— contem pt for w o m en — has as its first com m andm ent that w om en exist purely as sexual fodder for men.

W om en are an occupied people. O u r ve ry bodies are possessed, taken by others w h o have an inherent right to take, used or abused by others w h o have an inherent right to use or abuse. T h e ideology that en ergizes and justifies this system atic degradation is a fascist ideology— the ideology of biological inferiority. N o m atter h o w it is disguised, no m atter w h at refinem ents pretty it up, this ideology, reduced to its essence, postulates that w om en are biologically suited to function only as breeders, pieces of ass, and servants. This fascist ideology of fem ale inferiority is the preem inent ideology on this planet. A s Shulam ith Firestone put it in The Dialectic of Sex, "Sex class is so deep as to be invisible. " T h a t w om en exist to be used by men is, quite simply, the com m on point o f view , and the concom m itant of this point o f view , inexorably linked to it, is that violence used against w om en to force us to fulfill o ur so-called natural functions is not really violence at all. Every act of terror or crim e com m itted against w om en is justified as sexual necessity and/or is dismissed as u tterly unim portant. This extrem e callousness passes as norm alcy, so that w h en w om en, after years or decades or centuries of unspeakable abuse, do raise our voices in o utrage at the crim es com m itted against us, w e are accused o f stupidity or lunacy, or are ignored as if w e w ere flecks of dust instead of flesh and blood.

We w om en are raising our voices now , because all o ver this co u n try a n ew cam paign o f terror and vilification is being w aged

against us. Fascist propaganda celebrating sexual violence against w o m en is sw eep in g this land. Fascist propaganda celebrating the sexual degradation o f w o m en is inn un dating cities, college cam puses, sm all tow n s. P orn o grap h y is the propaganda o f sexual fascism .

P orn o grap h y is the propaganda o f sexual terrorism . Im ages of w o m en bound, bruised, and m aim ed on virtually e v e ry street corn er, on e v e ry m agazine rack, in e v e ry d ru g store, in m ovie house a fter m ovie house, on billboards, on posters pasted on w alls, are death th reats to a fem ale population in rebellion. Fem ale rebellion against m ale

sexual

despotism ,

fem ale

rebellion

against

m ale

sexual

au th o rity, is n o w a reality th ro u g h o u t this co u n try. T h e m en, m eeting rebellion w ith an escalation o f terror, hang pictures o f m aim ed fem ale bodies in e v e ry public place.

W e are forced eith er to capitulate, to be beaten back by those im ages o f abuse into silent acceptance o f fem ale degradation as a fact o f life, or to develop strategies o f resistance derived from a fu lly conscious w ill to resist. If w e capitulate— smile, be good, pretend that the w o m an in chains has no th in g to do w ith us, a vert o u r eyes as w e pass h er im age a hundred tim es a d ay— w e h a ve lost ev eryth in g .

W hat, a fte r all, d oes all o u r w o r k against rape or w ife -b eatin g am o u n t to w h e n o n e o f their pictures is w o rth a thou san d o f o u r w o rd s?

S trateg ies o f resistance are developing. W om en are increasingly refu sin g to accept the pernicious, debilitating lie th at the sexual hum iliation o f w o m en fo r fu n , pleasure, and profit is the inalienable right

of

e v e ry

m an.

P etitions,

leafleting,

picketing,

b oycotts,

organ ized vandalism , speak-outs, teach-ins, letter w ritin g cam paigns, in ten se and m ilitant h arassm en t o f distribu tors and exh ibitors of w o m an -h a tin g film s, and an u nyielding refu sal to giv e aid and co m fo rt

to the politically self-righ teo u s fellow -travelers o f the

p o rn ograp h ers are increasing, as fem inists refu se to c o w e r in the face o f this n e w cam paign o f annihilation. T h e s e are beginn in g actions.

So m e are rud e and som e are civil. S o m e are sh o rt-term actions, sp on­ tan eo u sly ignited by o u trage. O th e r s are lon g-term strategies that requ ire ex ten sive o rgan izatio n and co m m itm en t. S o m e disregard m ale law , break it w ith m ilitancy and pride. O th e r s dare to dem and that the law m u st protect w o m e n — even w o m e n — from brazen terro rization . A ll o f th ese actions arise o u t of th e tru e perception that p o rn og rap h y actively prom otes violent co n tem p t fo r the in teg rity

and rightful freedom of w om en. And, despite male claims to the contrary, fem inists, not pornographers, are being arrested and prosecuted by male law enforcers, all suddenly "civil libertarians" w h en male privilege is confronted on the streets by an gry and uppity w om en. T h e concept of "civil liberties" in this cou n try has not ever, and does not now , em body principles and behaviors that respect the sexual rights o f w om en. T h erefo re, w h en

pornographers are

challenged by women, police, district attorneys, and judges punish the w om en, all the w hile ritualistically claim ing to be the legal guardians of "free speech " In fact, th ey are the legal guardians o f male profit, male property, and phallic power.

Feminist actions against pornography m ust blanket the country, so that no pornographer can hide from , ignore, ridicule, or find refu ge from the outrage o f w om en w h o will not be degraded, w h o will not subm it to terror. W h erever w om en claim any dignity or w a n t any possibility o f freedom , w e m ust con fron t the fascist propaganda that celebrates atrocity against us head o n — expose it for w h a t it is, expose those w h o m ake it, those w h o sh ow it, those w h o defend it, those w h o consent to it, those w h o enjoy it.

In the course of this difficult and dangerous struggle, w e will be forced, as w e experience the intransigence of those w h o com m it and support these crim es against us, to ask the hardest and deepest questions, the ones w e so dread: — w h a t is this male sexuality that requires o u r humiliation, that literally sw ells w ith pride at our anguish; — w h at does it mean that yet again— and after years of fem inist analysis and activism — the men (gay, leftist, w h atever) w h o proclaim a com m itm ent to social justice are resolute in their refusal to face up to the m eaning and significance o f their enthusiastic advocacy o f yet anoth er w om an -hating plague; — w h a t does it m ean that the pornographers, the consum ers of pornography, and the apologists fo r porn ography are the m en w e g re w up w ith, the m en w e talk w ith, live w ith, the m en w h o are fam iliar to us and often cherished by us as friends, fathers, brothers, sons, and lovers; — h ow , surrounded by this flesh o f o ur flesh that despises us, will w e defend the w o rth of our lives, establish o u r o w n authentic integrity, and, at last, achieve o u r freedom ?

Why Pornography Matters to Feminists

T h e N ew

Y o rk T im e s struck again in the spring of 19 8 1

when

P o rn o g ra p h y : M en P o sse ssin g W o m en was published. Having ignored W o m an H atin g , O u r B lo o d , and th e n ew w o m a n s b ro k en h e a r t (short stories), T h e N ew Y o rk T im e s B o o k R e v ie w chose a political adversary with a history of tearing down other feminists to review my book on pornography. She trashed it, especially by suggesting that any critique of pornography was necessarily right-wing, strengthened the political Right by giving it aid and comfort, and advocated censorship. Because the woman was a feminist, T h e N ew Y o rk T im e s (the single most important forum for book reviews in the United States) had what they needed to discredit the book, the integrity of the fight against pornography, and feminism too. Not having access to any mainstream forum, I published this short article in a Boston-based feminist newspaper, S o jo u r n e r , to say W hy P o rn o g ra p h y M a tte r s to F e m in ists. I haven't seen any defense of pornography by anyone posturing as a feminist that addresses even one point made in this piece.

o r n o g r a p h y is a n essential issue because p o rn ograp h y says that

P

w o m en w a n t to be h u rt, forced, and abused; po rn ograp h y says

w o m en w a n t to be raped, b attered , kidnapped, m aim ed; p o rn og rap h y says w o m en w a n t to be hum iliated, sham ed, defam ed; p o rn og rap h y says th at w o m en say N o but m ean Y e s — Y es to violence, Y es to pain.

Also: p o rn o g rap h y says that w o m en are things; p o rn o g rap h y says that being used as th in gs fulfills the erotic n atu re o f w o m en ; p o rn o g rap h y says that w o m e n are the th in gs m en use.

Also: in pornography w om en are used as things; in pornography force is used against w om en; in porn ography w om en are used.

Also: porn ography says that w om en are sluts, cunts; pornography says that pornographers define w om en; porn ography says that men define w om en; pornography says that w om en are w h at m en w ant w om en to be.

Also: pornography sh ow s w om en as body parts, as genitals, as vaginal slits, as nipples, as buttocks, as lips, as open w ounds, as pieces.

Also: pornography uses real w om en.

Also: pornography is an industry that buys and sells w om en.

Also: pornography sets the standard for fem ale sexuality, for fem ale sexual values, fo r girls g ro w in g up, fo r boys gro w in g up, and increasingly for advertising, films, video, visual arts, fine art and literature, music w ith words.

Also: the acceptance o f porn ography m eans the decline of fem inist ethics and an abandonm ent of fem inist politics; the acceptance of p ornography m eans fem inists abandon w om en.

Also: pornography reinforces the R ight's hold on w om en by m aking the en viron m en t outside the hom e m ore dangerous, m ore threatening; pornography reinforces the husband's hold on the w ife by

m aking

the dom estic en viron m en t m ore dangerous, m ore

threatening.

Also: pornography turns w om en into objects and com modities; porn ography perpetuates the object status of w om en; porn ography perpetuates the self-defeating divisions am ong w o m en by per足 petuating the object status of w om en; porn ograph y perpetuates the low self-esteem o f w o m en by perpetuating the object status of w om en; pornography perpetuates the distrust of w om en for w om en by perpetuating the object status of w om en; porn ograph y per足 petuates the dem eaning and degrading of fem ale intelligence and creativity by perpetuating the object status o f w om en.

Also:

porn ograph y

is violence against

the w o m en

used

in

porn ography and porn ography encourages and prom otes violence against w o m en as a class; p o rn ograph y d ehum anizes the w om en used in porn ography and porn ograph y contributes to and prom otes the dehum anization o f all w om en; porn ograph y exploits the w o m en used in porn ograph y and accelerates and prom otes the sexual and econom ic exploitation o f w o m en as a class.

Also: p o rn ograph y is made by m en w h o sanction, use, celebrate, and prom ote violence against w om en.

Also: p o rn ograp h y exploits children o f both sexes, especially girls, and en cou rages violence against children, and does violence to children.

Also: p o rn ograph y uses racism and anti-Sem itism to prom ote sexual arousal; p o rn ograph y prom otes racial hatred by prom otin g racial degradation as "sexy"; po rn ograp h y rom anticizes the con足 cen tration cam p and the plantation, the N azi and the slaveholder; p orn ography exploits dem eaning

racial stereo typ es to p rom ote

sexual arousal; p o rn ograph y celebrates racist sexual obsessions.

Also: p o rn o g rap h y num bs the conscience, m akes one increasingly callous to cruelty, to the infliction of pain, to violence against persons, to the hum iliation or degradation of persons, to the abuse o f w o m en and children.

Also: p o rn ograp h y gives us no fu tu re; po rn ograp h y robs us o f hope as w ell as dignity; p o rn ograp h y fu rth e r lessens o u r hu m an value in the society at large and o ur hum an potential in fact; po rn ograp h y forbids

sexual

p o rn ograph y

self-determ ination uses

us

up and

to

w o m en

th ro w s

annihilates o u r chance fo r freedom .

us

and

aw ay;

to children; p o rn ograp h y

Pornography';s Part in Sexual Violence Vic

It took a year to get this published in eviscerated form in N ew sday, a Long Island, New York, daily newspaper. Nearly four months later, T h e Los A n g eles T im e s published this version, closer to what I wrote. The manuscript is lost, so this is the most complete version existing. In Ohio, Sisters of justice destroy adult bookstores in lightning attacks. In Minnesota, a few hundred women savage an adult bookstore and destroy the stock. In California, in dozens of supermarkets, H u stler is saturated with India ink month after month. In Canada, feminists are jailed for bombing an outlet of a chain that sells video­ pornography. In Massachusetts, a woman shoots a bullet through the window of a closed bookstore that sells pornography. A model of nonviolent civil disobedience is the N ation al R am p age A g ain st P e n th o u se , organized by the brilliant activists, Nikki Craft and Melissa Farley. Women invade bookstores, especially B. Dalton, the largest distributor of P e n th o u se in the United States, and tear up magazines until arrested. They tear up Playboy and H u stler too where they find them. They claim this as protected political speech. They have been arrested in Des Moines, Dubuque, Iowa City, Cedar Rapids, Cedar Falls, and Coralville, Iowa; Lincoln and Omaha, Nebraska; Santa Cruz, Davis, and San Jose, California; Madison and Beloit, Wisconsin; Minneapolis, Minnesota; St. Joseph, Missouri; Provincetown, Massachusetts; Durham, North Carolina; Rock Island and Chicago, Illinois. One leaflet says: "Next action is pending. We will not be Rehabilitated by jail. "

L

w o m en — Linda Hand, Jane Q u in n and W ild w om oon — entered a store in H artford, C o n n .,

a s t F eb ru a ry th re e

Shell

and poured hum an blood on books and film s that depicted the sexual abuse of w o m en and children, as well as on an arsenal of m etalstudded dildos and whips.

T h e store, "T h e Bare Facts, " nom inally sells lingerie A 'fan tasy room " in the back h ouses the above-m entioned stock. Several tim es a year, on holidays, there is an open house in the fan tasy room . A s the m en drink cham pagne provided by the m an agem en t, fem ale m odels strut and pose am idst the sexual paraphernalia in lingerie that the m ale audience selects from the s to r e s stock.

H and, Q u in n and W ildw om oon picketed the C h ristm as celebra­ tion. T h e y tried to stop the V a le n tin e s D a y party by spilling blood.

T h e y w e re charged w ith crim inal m ischief, a felon y that carries a possible five-year sentence and $5000 fine, and criminal trespass, a m isdem eanor w ith a possible o n e-year sentence.

T h e th ree conducted their o w n defense. T h e y claim ed that th ey had acted to preven t a g rea ter crim e— the sexual abuse of w o m en and children; that the m aterials in question contributed m aterially to sexual violence against w o m en and children; th at society had a g rea ter obligation to protect w o m en 's lives than dildos. In the great tradition o f civil disobedience, th ey placed the righ ts o f people above th e rights of property. T h is w as the first tim e ever that such a d efen se w as put fo rth in behalf o f w o m en , against porn ograph y, in a co u rt of law . T h e y w e re acquitted.

I testified fo r the d efen se as an expert w itn ess on porn ograph y. For the first tim e, I w as u nd er oath w h en asked w h eth er, in m y opinion, p orn ograph y is a cause o f violence against w om en.

I hate that qu estion, because po rn ograp h y is violence against w om en : the w o m en used in porn ography. N ot only is th ere a precise sy m m etry o f valu es and beh aviors in po rn ograp h y and in acts of forced sex and battery, but in a sex-polarized society m en also learn about w o m en and sex from p orn ograph y. T h e m essage is con veyed to m en that w o m en en joy being abused. Increasingly, research is p roving that sex and violen ce— and the perception th at fem ales take pleasure in being abused, w h ich is the h eart of p o rn o g ra p h y — teach m en both am bition and strategy.

But beyond the em pirical research, there is the evidence of testim on y: w o m en com in g fo rth , at least in the safety o f fem inist circles, to testify to the role that p o rn o g rap h y played in their o w n

experiences of sexual abuse. O n e nineteen-year-old w om an testified at the H artford trial that her father consistently used pornographic m aterial as he raped and tortured her over a period of years. She also told of a netw ork of her fa th e rs friends, including doctors and law yers, w h o abused her and other children. O n e of these doctors treated the children to avoid being exposed.

Stories such as these are not m erely bizarre and sensational; they are beginning to appear in fem inist literature w ith increasing frequency. T o dismiss them is to dismiss the lives of the victims.

T h e refusal, especially am ong liberals, to believe that pornography has any real relationship to sexual violence is astonishing. Liberals have alw ays believed in the value and im portance o f education. But w h en it com es to pornography, w e are asked to believe that nothing pornographic, w h eth er w ritten or visual, has an educative effect on anyone. A recognition that pornography m ust teach som ething does not im ply any inevitable conclusion: it does not per se countenance censorship. It does, h o w ever, dem and that w e pay som e attention to the quality of life, to the content o f pornography.

A nd it especially dem ands that w hen sexual violence against w om en is epidemic, serious questions be asked about the function and value o f m aterial that advocates such violence and m akes it syn on ym o u s w ith pleasure.

Is it "prudish, " "repressive, " "censorious" or "fascistic" to dem and that "hum an rights" include the rights of w om en, or to insist that w o m en w h o are being raped, beaten or forced into prostitution are being denied fundam ental hum an rights? A re the advocates of freedom really concerned only for the freedom of the abusers?

W e in the United States are so proud o f o u r freedom , but w om en in the United States have lost ground, not gained it, even in controlling sexual access to our o w n bodies. This is the system of p ow er in w hich rape w ithin m arriage is considered a crim e in only three states (N ew Jersey, N ebraska and O regon). T his is the sam e system of po w er that condones the pornography that exalts rape and gan g rape, bondage, whipping and forced sex o f all kinds. In this same system of p o w er, there are an estim ated tw en ty -eigh t million battered w ives. W here, after all, do those drunken m en g o w h en th ey leave the porn sh o p s fantasy room ? T h e y g o hom e to w o m en and children.

T h e w o m en w h o poured hum an blood o ver the m aterial in that

H artford shop faced the tru e "bare facts": P ornograph y is d an gerou s and effective propaganda that incites violence against easy targ ets— w o m en and children.

The ACLU: Bait and Switch

The American Civil Liberties Union claims to protect rights, political dissenters, and the vitality of political and creative discourse. The organization, in my view, is exceptionally corrupt, a handmaiden of the pornographers, the Nazis, and the Ku Klux Klan. Only the pornographers give them lots of money. The Nazis and the Klan they help on principle. It's their form of charity work. I didn't understand this in 1981. I thought something was wrong but I wasn't exactly sure what. I wrote this piece to try to raise a real debate about the values and tactics of the ACLU . Forget it, folks. The A C L U is immune to criticism because virtually none gets published— none on the Left. I couldn't get this piece published but I did get some mean— even handwritten— letters from left, progressive, and libertarian editors expressing their disgust with my "contempt" for free speech.

Speech is what I do; it ain't free; it costs a lot. This piece has never been published before.

o w a r d s th e

T

en d

o f 1975, I received several letters asking

me to becom e a m em ber of the A C L U . T h e stationery w as

lined w ith the nam es o f em inent w om en. T h e letters w ere signed by an em inent w om an. T h e plea w as a fem inist plea: the A C L U w as in the fo refron t o f the fight for w o m e n s rights. In 1 9 7 5 , 1 earned $1679.

D eeply m oved by the w ond erfu l w o rk being done by m y sisters in the A C L U , that crusading organization fo r w om en 's rights, I w ro te a check for fifteen dollars and joined. I received a letter thanking me.

T h is letter too had nam es on it, all male. It w as signed by A ry e h N eier, then Executive D irector. V erily, a w om an 's nam e, a reference to

fem inist issues, w as not to be found. I w ro te M r N eier a letter that said in part: "A ll o f the mail soliciting m y m em bership w as exem plary in its civility— that is, fem ale nam es m ingled w ith m ale nam es on letterheads; even m en w e re chairpersons, etc. N o w that I am a m em ber, I find that I have been deceived by a bait and sw itch technique. M y form letter w elco m in g m e is replete w ith 'm an's' and m en, and n ary a w o m an or a nod to fem inist sensibilities is to be fo u n d . " O f course, being v e ry poor I had missed the fifteen dollars, bu t not fo r long. M r N eier returned it to me im m ediately. H e said that he w ou ld rath er receive m y com plaint that old statio n ery "doesn't use th e latest neologism than a com plaint ab o u t profligacy fo r discarding it. " M y m em bership fee w a s "ch eerfu lly refu n d ed . " In th e in terven in g years, letters soliciting m on ey continued to arrive at a stead y pace. D espite M r N eier's cavalier attitude, it seem ed that m y fifteen dollars w a s sorely needed. A s fem inists con fron ted the issue o f porn ographic assault on w o m en as individuals and as a class, prom inent civil libertarians, M r N eier fo rem o st am on g them , denounced us fo r w a stin g civil libertarian tim e by speaking about the issue at all. M ean w h ile, the A C L U sa w to it that N azis m arched in Skokie and that the K lan w a s defended in C alifornia. W hile w e fem inists piddled arou nd , the A C L U w a s doing the serious business o f d efen din g freedom .

In January 19 8 1, I received yet a n o th er letter claim ing th at the A C L U needed m e, this tim e fro m G e o rg e M cG o vern . T h e letter said th at the A C L U w a s fightin g the R ight, the M oral M ajority, the R ight to Life M o vem en t, the N e w R ight, and th e evangelical R ight. T h e en tire th ru st o f the letter pitted a g arga n tu a n R ight against a broadly constru ed left. R eading it, on e could o n ly believe th at th e passion and purpose o f the A C L U w a s to trium ph o v e r the terrible and terrifyin g Right. A n d w h a t w e re the N azis and the Klan, I asked m yself.

C h o p p ed liver?

T h e A C L U , in both philosophy and practice, m akes no distinction b etw e en R igh t and L eft, o r R igh t and Liberal, o r R ight and an yth in g else. It does not even m ake a distinction b etw e en those w h o h ave genocidal am bitions and th ose w h o do not. T h e A C L U prides itself on refu sin g to m ake th ese distinctions.

Som e thin k th at the A C L U w o u ld not ch oose to d efen d N azis if N azis w e re w h a t is called "a real th rea t. " For som e, this supposition

gets the A C L U o ff the hook. But the Klan is "a real threat": count the dead bodies; watch the m urderers acquitted; see the military training cam ps the Klan is establishing. It is tim e for the A C L U to com e clean.

Its fight is not against the R ight in any form , including the M oral M ajority or opponents o f the Equal R ights A m endm ent (as M r M c G o v e rn s letter claims). Its fight is for an absence of distinctions: "kill the Jews'' and "rape the w o m en " indistinguishable from all o th er speech; action m istaken for speech; the victim confounded into honoring

the

so-called

rights o f the executioner. In bondage

photographs and m ovies, w e are to interpret the bondage itself as speech and protect it as such. T h e sym bol of free speech A C L U -style m ight well be a w om an tied, chained, stru ng up, and gagged. Needless to say, she will not be on any letterhead. If the A C L U w ere honest, she w ould be.

I am tired o f the sophistry o f the A C L U and also of its good reputation am ong progressive people. In 1975, it seem ed sm art to rope in fem inists, so em inent w om en w ere used to proclaim the A C L U a strong fem inist organization, w hich no doubt they w anted it to becom e. T his year, people are afraid of the so-called M oral M ajority, and so the A C L U gets bucks by claim ing to be a stalw art en em y o f the Right. T h ere is nothing in A C L U philosophy or practice to prohibit the u se o f those bucks to defend the R ight— the Nazis, the Klan, o r the M oral M ajority.

T h ere is nothing as dangerous as an unem bodied principle: no m atter w h at blood flow s, the principle com es first. T h e First A m en d m en t absolutists operate precisely on unem bodied principle: consequences

do

not

m atter;

physical

acts

are

taken

to

be

abstractions; genocidal am bitions and concrete organizing tow ard genocidal goals are trivialized by male law yers w h o are a m ost protected and privileged group. M ean w hile, those w h o are targeted as victim s are left defenseless. O f course, the A C L U does help the targeted groups som etim es, in som e cases, depending on the resources available, resources depleted by defenses o f the violent Right.

It is tim e fo r the A C L U to stop w o rkin g both sides of the street.

Som e grou ps exist in order to hu rt o th er groups. Som e grou ps are socially constructed for the purpose o f h u rtin g oth er groups. T h e K lan is such a group. Som e people are born into groups that others

w a n t to hurt. T h e distinction is fundam ental: so fundam ental that even the A C L U will h ave to reckon w ith it.

Why So-Called Radical Men Love and Need Pornography

This is especially about the boys of the Sixties, boys my age, who fought against the Viet Nam War. The flower children. The peaceniks. The hippies. Students fora democratic society. Weatherboys. Draft resisters. Draft dodgers. Draftcard burners. War resisters. Conscientious objectors. Yippies. We women fought for the lives of these boys against the war machine. They fight now for pornography.

In demonstrations we said: " Bring the War Home." The war is home.

I When they arrived at the place God had pointed out to him, Abraham built an altar there, and arranged the wood. Then he bound his son Isaac and put him on the altar on top of the wood. Abraham stretched out his hand and seized the knife to kill his son.

Genesis, 22:9-10

M

en l o v e d e a t h . In everyth in g th ey m ake, they h ollow out a

central place for death, let its rancid smell contam inate

ev e ry dim ension of w h a tev er still survives. M en especially love m urder. In art they celebrate it, and in life they com m it it. T h e y em brace m urder as if life w ith o u t it w ould be devoid of passion, m eaning, and action, as if m urder w ere solace, stilling their sobs as th ey m ourn the em ptiness and alienation o f their lives.

M ale history, rom ance, and adven tu re are stories of m urder, literal or m ythic. M en o f the right justify m urder as the instrum ent of

establishing or m aintaining order, and men o f the left justify m urder as the in stru m ent o f effectin g insurrection , a fter w hich th ey justify it in the sam e term s as m en on the right. In male culture, slow m urder is the heart of eros, fast m urder is the heart o f action, and system atized m urder is the heart o f h istory. It is as if, long, long ago, m en m ade a coven an t w ith m urder: I will w o rsh ip and serve you if you will spare me; I will m urder so as not to be m urdered; I will not b etray you, no m atter w h a t else I m ust betray. M u rd er prom ised: to the victor go the spoils. T his coven an t, sealed in blood, has been renew ed in ev ery generation.

A m o n g m en, the fear o f being m urdered causes m en to m urder.

T h e fathers, w h o w an ted their o w n likeness lifted from the th igh s of laboring w o m en , w h o w an ted sons, not d au gh ters, at som e point recogn ize that, like w retch ed K in g M idas, th ey h ave g o tten their w ay.

T h ere before them are the sons w h o are the sam e as th ey, sons w h o will kill for pow er, sons w h o will take e v ery th in g from them , sons w h o will replace them . T h e sons, clay sculpted but not yet fired in the kiln, m ust kill or be killed, depose the tyra n t or be gro u n d to dust, on a battlefield o r u nder his feet. T h e fath ers are the divine architects of w a r and business; the sons are a sacrifice of flesh, bodies slaughtered to redeem the dim inishing virility o f the aging o w n e rs o f th e earth.

In A m erika, the m ost recent sacrifice o f the sons w as called V iet N am . A s A brah am obeyed the G od created to serve his o w n deepest p sych osexual needs, raised the knife to kill Isaac w ith his o w n hand, so the fath ers o f A m erika, in obedience to the State created to serve th em , sated th em selves on a blood feast o f m ale you n g.

T h e sons w h o w e n t w e re obedient apprentices to the fath ers. W ar had fo r them its m ost ancient m eaning: it w ou ld initiate them into the co ven an t w ith m urder. T h e y w ou ld appease their terrible fa th ers by su bstitu tin g the dead bodies o f o th er sons fo r their o w n . Each son of an o th er race that th ey killed w ou ld stren g th en th eir alliance w ith the fath ers o f their o w n . A n d if th ey could also m u rd er w ith o u t being m urdered and kill in th em selves w h a te v e r still sh u n ned m urder, then th ey m ight h ave the fa th e r s blessing, be heir to his dom inion, ch an ge in m idlife fro m son to father, becom e one o f the p o w e rfu l ones w h o ch o reograp h w a r and m anipulate death.

T h e sons w h o did not g o declared o u trigh t a w a r o f rebellion. T h e y w ou ld rou t the fath er, van quish him , hum iliate him, d estroy him.

O v e r the grave of the fresh killed father, feeding on the new cadaver, w ould flo w er a brotherhood of you n g virility, sensual, w ith ou t constraint, and there w ould be w a r no m ore.

Still, this innocence kn ew terror. T h ese rebels had terror m arked indelibly in their flesh — terror at the treachery o f the father, w h o had had them sanctified, adored, and fattened, not to crow n them king of the w orld, but instead to m ake them ripe fo r slaughter. T h ese rebels had seen them selves bound on the altar, knife in the father's hand com ing tow ard them . T h e father's cru elty w as aw esom e, as w as his m am m oth pow er.

II Noah, a tiller of the soil, was the first to plant the vine. He drank some of the wine, and while he was drunk he uncovered himself inside his tent.

Ham, Canaans ancestor, saw his father's nakedness, and told his two brothers outside. Shem and Japheth took a cloak and they both put it over their shoulders, and walking backwards, covered their father's nakedness; they kept their faces turned away, and did not see their father's nakedness.

When Noah awoke from his stupor he learned what his youngest son had done to him. And he said: "Accursed be Canaan. He shall be his brothers' meanest slave."

Genesis, 9:20-25 T h e fathers hoard pow er. T h e y use p o w er to am ass m ore pow er.

T h e y are not sentim ental about pow er. In ev ery area o f life, th ey act to take or to consolidate pow er.

T h e rebellious sons, born in the im age o f the father, are born to pow er, but th ey do not value it in term s the fath er can recognize.

T h ese sons renounce the fathers' cold love o f pow er. T h ese sons claim that the purpose o f p o w e r is pleasure. T h ese sons w an t p ow er to keep them w arm betw een the thighs.

T h e fath ers k n o w that taboo is the essence o f power: keep the source o f p o w er hidden, m ysterious, sacred, so that those w ith o u t p o w er can never find it, understand it, or take it aw ay.

T h e rebellious sons think that p o w er is like y o u th — th eirs forever.

T h e y think that p o w er can n ever be used up, th ro w n aw ay, o r taken

aw ay. T h e y think that p o w er can be spent in the pursuit of pleasure w ith ou t being dim inished, that pleasure replenishes pow er.

T h e fath ers k n o w that either p o w er is used to m ake m ore pow er, or it is lost forever.

In A m erika, during the V iet N am w ar, the argu m en t took this form : the fath ers m aintained, as they alw ays have, that the p o w er of m anhood is in the phallus: keep it covered, hidden; shroud it in religious taboo; use it in secret; on it build an em pire, but n ever expose it to the pow erless, those w h o do not h ave it, those w h o w ould, if th ey could but see its true, naked, unarm ed dim ensions, have contem p t for it, grind it to nothing u nder their thum bs. T h e fath ers w anted to m aintain the sacred character o f the phallus; as Y ah w eh 's nam e m ust not be pronounced, so the phallus m ust be om nipresent in its pow er, but in itself concealed, n ever profaned.

T h e rebel sons w anted phallic p o w er to be secular and "dem ocratic" in the m ale sense o f the w ord; that is, th ey w anted to fu ck at will, as a birth right. W ith a princely arrogan ce that belied their egalitarian pretensions, th ey w anted to w ield penises, not gun s, as em blem s of m anhood. T h e y did not repudiate the illegitim ate p o w er o f the phallus: th ey repudiated the au th o rity o f the fa th er that put lim its of law and co n ven tion on their lust. T h e y did not a rg u e against the p o w er o f th e phallus; th ey argued fo r pleasure as the purest use to w h ich it could be put.

T h e fath ers used the institutions of their a u th o rity — law , religion, etc. — to

forbid

the hedonism

o f the rebel sons because th ey

understood that these sons, in their reckless prom iscuity, w ou ld und erm in e m ale h egem on y: not the p o w er o f the fath ers o v e r the sons, exercised w ith raw malice in V iet N am , but the p o w e r o f all m en o v e r all w o m en . In vu lgarizin g the penis, the rebels w o u ld u n co ve r it; in u n co verin g it, th ey w ou ld e x p o s e it to w o m en , fro m w h o m it had been hidden by carefu lly cultivated and en forced ignorance, m yth , and taboo fo r h undreds o f cen turies. T h e fath ers k n e w that the rom ance o f bo ys en chan ted by their o w n virility could not take th e place o f taboo in protecting the penis fro m the w ra th , buried but festerin g, o f those w h o had been colonialized by it.

III You must not uncover the nakedness of your father or mother.

Leviticus, 18:7 You must not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife; it is your father's nakedness.

Leviticus, 18:8 You must not uncover the nakedness of your fathers sister; for it is your father's flesh.

Leviticus, 18:12 A ccording

to

the

editors

of

The

Jerusalem

Bible, "uncovering

nakedness" is a "pejorative phrase fo r sexual intercourse. " T h e above prohibitions in Leviticus, w ritten to delineate law fu l male behavior, all forbid incest— incest w ith the father. In vu lgar English, th ey m ight all read: you m ust not fuck yo u r father.

A braham binds Isaac on the altar, to penetrate him w ith a phallic substitute, a knife. In male m ythology, knife or sw ord is a prim ary m etaphor fo r the penis; the w ord vagina literally m eans sheath. T h e scenario itself, devoid of any sym bolism , is stark hom oerotic sadom asochism .

N oah is violated w h en Ham sees him naked. T h e offen se o f the you n gest son is so vile to N oah that he exiles that son's descendants into eternal slavery.

Father-son incest, repressed, veiled in a thousand veils, too secret even to be denied, is an invisible specter that h aun ts m en, stalks them , sham es

them .

T his

erotic

repression

is the

silent

pulse

of

institutionalized phallic pow er. T h e fathers, w om bless perpetuators o f th eir o w n im age, k n o w them selves; that is, th ey k n o w that th ey are dangerous, p u rveyors of raw violence and constant death. T h e y k n o w that male desire is the stu ff o f m urder, not love. T h e y k n o w that male eroticism , atrophied in the m um m ified penis, is sadistic; that the penis itself is as th ey have nam ed it, a knife, a sw ord, a w eapon. T h e y k n o w too that the sexual aggression o f m en against each o ther, especially sons against fathers, once let loose w ould d estroy them .

T h e fathers do not fu ck the sons, not because th ey h ave n ever w anted to, but because th ey k n o w the necessity of subordinating eroticism to the purposes o f pow er: th ey k n o w that this desire, above

all others, m ust be buried, left to rot u nd er the grou nd of male experience to feed the verm in that craw l there. T o take the son w ould su g gest to the son an o th er possibility— that he m ight turn on the aging father, subdue him th ro u gh sexual assault.

T h e fath ers m ust d estro y in the sons the v e ry capacity to violate them . T h e y m ust turn this im pulse to paralysis, im potence, dead n erv e endings, m em ory num bed in ice. For if fath er and son w e re naked, face to face, the m ale w eapon that is aggression m ortified into w h a t m en call passion w ou ld rend the father, conqu er and disgrace him.

In w a r, the fath ers castrate the sons by killing them . In w a r, the fath ers o verw h elm the penises o f the su rvivin g sons by h aving terrorized them , h avin g tried to d ro w n them in blood.

But this is not en ou gh , fo r the fa th ers tru ly fear the potency o f the sons. K n o w in g fu lly the to rtu re cham bers of m ale im agination, th ey see th em selves, legs splayed, rectum split, torn, shredded b y the saber th ey h ave enshrined.

D o it to her, th ey w hisper; do it to her, th ey com m and.

IV In A m erika, a fte r the V iet N am w ar, this happened.

T h e rebellious sons w e re no lon ger carefree boys, w ildly flushed by the d iscovery o f th eir penises as in stru m en ts o f pleasure. T h e y had seen the m u rd er spaw ned b y the fath ers com in g tow ard them , pu rsu ing them , en com passing them . T h e y had been chasten ed and hardened, stu nn ed and fixed in the m em ory o f a single horror: th e fath er had bound th em on the altar; the father's hand, clutching the knife, w as com in g tow ard them .

T h e rebellious sons had g o tten older. T h eir penises too had aged, experienced im potence, failure. T h e capacity of the nin eteen-year-old boy to fu ck at will w a s no lo n ger theirs.

T h e rebellious sons, as the fath ers m ight h a ve prophesied, had experienced a n o th er loss, a consequ ence o f th eir prideful sacrilege: th ey had profaned the penis b y u n co verin g it, ripping fro m it the effectiv e protection of m ystery and taboo; those colonialized by it had seen it w ith o u t m ystification , experienced it raw , and th ey had organ ized to d estroy its p o w er o ver them . T h e sons, vain and

narcissistic, did not recognize or respect the revolutionary militance o f the w om en: they kn ew only that the w om en had left them, abandoned them , and that w ith ou t the supine bodies of w om en to firm up the earth under them , they had no w h ere to put their feet.

T h e v e ry earth beneath them betrayed them , turned to quicksand or dust.

T h e sons, dispossessed, did have a choice: to bond w ith the fathers to crush the w om en or to ally them selves w ith the w om en against the tyran n y o f all phallic pow er, including their ow n.

T h e sons, faithful to the penis, bonded w ith the fathers w h o had tried to kill them . O n ly in this alliance could they m ake certain that th ey w ould not again be bound on the altar fo r sacrifice. O n ly in this alliance could th ey find the social and political p ow er that could com pensate them for their w anin g virility. O n ly in this alliance could th ey gain access to the institutionalized brute force necessary to reven ge them selves on the w om en w h o had left them.

T h e perfect vehicle for forging this alliance w as pornography.

T h e fathers, no strangers to pornography, used it as secret ritual.

In it they intoned chants of w orship to their o w n virility, som etim es only a m em ory. T h ese chants conjured up a prom ised land w h ere male virility never w aned, w h ere the penis in and of itself embodied pure pow er. T h e fathers also used porn ography to m ake m oney. In their system , secret vice w as the alchem ists gold.

U sing the rhetoric of the you ths th ey no longer w ere, the sons claimed that porn ography w as pleasure, all the w hile turning it to profit. Proclaim ing a creed o f freedom the sons made and sold im ages o f w o m en bound and shackled. Proclaim ing the necessity and dignity o f freedom , the sons made and sold im ages of w om en hum iliated and m utilated. Proclaim ing the u rgen t h on or of free speech, the sons used im ages o f rape and tortu re to terrorize w om en

into silence.

Proclaim ing the absolute integrity o f the First A m endm ent, the sons used it to brow beat w o m en into silence.

T h e sons w a n t their share o f the father's empire. In return, they o ffe r the fath er this: n ew aven ues o f m aking m oney; n e w m eans of terrorizin g w o m en into subm ission; n ew m asks to protect the penis.

T h is time, the sons will m ake the m asks. T h e cloth will be liberal jargon about censorship; the thread will be such pure violence that w o m en will avert their eyes.

T h e sons have already allied them selves w ith one sector of fa th ers— organized crim e. Still spouting anticapitalist, liberationist platitudes, th ey h ave not hesitated to becom e the filth th ey denounce.

T h e o th er fath ers will follo w suit. T h e secret fear o f incestuous rape is still w ith them , and it is intensified by the recognition that these sons h ave learned to turn pleasure to profit, profligacy to pow er.

In p orn ograph y, the rebellious sons h ave discovered the keys to the kingdom . Soon th ey will be sitting on the throne.

For Men, Freedom of Speech; For Women, Silence Please

I wrote this to answer two editorials in T h e N ew Y o rk T im es that quoted from Pornography: T h e New T erro rism and denounced feminists for undermining the First Amendment (freedom of speech) by speaking out against pornography. T h e N ew Y o rk T im es would not publish it; neither would T h e W ash in g to n P ost, N ew sw eek , M o th e r Jo n es, T h e V illage V o ice, T h e N atio n , T h e R eal Paper, or anywhere else one could think to send it. It was first published in 1980 in the anthology T a ke B ack th e N ight, edited by Laura Lederer. I had been named in one of the T im es editorials and thought that ethically I was entitled to some right of response. No. I thought the other places— very big on free speech— should publish it because they were very big on free speech. No.

A

g r e a t m an y m en, no small num ber o f them leftist law yers,

are

apparently

afraid

that

fem inists

are

going

to

take

their dirty pictures a w a y from them . Anticipating the distress of forced w ithdraw al, th ey argue that fem inists really m ust shut up about porn ography— w h at it is, w h a t it m eans, w h at to do about it— to protect w h a t th ey call "freedom of speech. " O u r "strident" and "o v erw ro u g h t" antagonism to pictures that sh o w w om en sexually violated and hum iliated, bound, gagged, sliced up, tortured in a m ultiplicity o f w ays, "offen ds" the First A m endm ent. T h e enforced silence o f w om en th rough the centuries has not. Som e elem entary observation s are in order.

T h e C o n stitu tio n o f the United States w as w ritten exclusively by

w h ite m en w h o o w n ed land. Som e o w n ed black slaves, male and fem ale. M an y m ore ow n ed w h ite w o m en w h o w e re also chattel T h e Bill o f R ights w a s n ever intended to protect the civil or sexual rights o f w o m en and it has not, except occasionally by accident: The

Equal

R igh ts

A m en d m en t,

w h ich

w ou ld ,

as

a

polite

a fte rth o u g h t, exten d equal protection under the law such as it is to w o m en , is not y et part o f the C o n stitu tio n . T h ere is good reason to d ou bt that it will be in the foreseeable fu tu re.

T h e g o v ern m en t in all its aspects— legislative, execu tive, judicial, en fo rce m en t— has been com posed alm ost exclu sively o f m en. Even juries, until v e ry recently, w e re com posed alm ost en tirely o f m en.

W om en h a ve had virtually n o th in g to do w ith eith er form u latin g or applying law s on obscenity o r a n yth in g else. In the arena o f political pow er, w o m en h ave been e ffectively silenced.

Both law and p o rn og rap h y express m ale contem p t fo r w o m en : th ey h ave in the past and th ey do n ow . B oth express en d u rin g m ale social and sexual values; each attem pts to fix m ale beh avior so that the su prem acy o f the m ale o v e r the fem ale w ill be m aintained. T h e social and sexu al valu es o f w o m en are b arely discernible in the cu ltu re in w h ich w e live. In m ost instances, w o m en h ave been deprived o f the o p p o rtu n ity even to fo rm u late, let alone articulate o r spread, values that contradict those o f th e male. T h e attem pts that w e m ake are both punished and ridiculed. W om en o f su prem e stren g th w h o h ave lived in creative opposition to the m ale cultural values o f th eir day h ave been w ritten o u t o f h isto ry — silenced.

Rape is w idespread. O n e characteristic o f rape is that it silences w o m en . L aw s against rape h ave not functioned to protect the bodily in tegrity o f w o m en ; instead, th e y h ave punished som e m en fo r using w o m en w h o belong to som e o th er m en.

B attery is w idespread. O n e characteristic o f b attery is that it silences w o m en . L aw s against b a ttery h a ve been, in their application, a m alicious joke.

T h e re is not a fem inist alive w h o could possibly look to the m ale legal system fo r real protection fro m the system atized sadism o f m en.

W om en fig h t to refo rm m ale law , in the areas o f rape and b a ttery for instance, because so m eth in g is b etter than nothing. In general, w e figh t to force the law to reco gn ize us as the victim s of the crim es com m itted against us, but the resu lts so far h ave been paltry and

pathetic. M eanw hile, the men are there to counsel us. We m ust not dem and the conviction of rapists or turn to the police w hen raped because then w e are "prosecutorial" and racist. Since w hite men have used the rape law s to imprison black m en, w e are on the side of the racist w h en w e (wom en of any color) turn to the law. T h e fact that m ost rape is intraracial, and m ore prosecution will inevitably mean the greater prosecution o f w hite m en fo r the crim es they com m it, is supposedly irrelevant. (It is, of course, suddenly very relevant w hen one recognizes that this argum ent w as invented and is being prom oted by w hite men, significantly endangered for perhaps the first tim e by the anti-rape m ilitancy o f w o m en . ) W e are also counselled that it is w ron g to dem and that the police enforce already existing law s against battery because then w e "sanction" police en try into the hom e, which the police can then use for o th er purposes.

Better that rape and battery should continue unchallenged, and the law be used by som e m en against o ther men w ith no reference to the rightful protection of w om en. T h e counsel o f men is consistent: m aintain a proper— and respectful— silence.

Male counsel on pornography, especially from leftist law yers, has also been abundant. We have been told that pornography is a trivial issue and that w e m ust stop w asting the valuable time of those guarding "freedom of speech" by talking about it. We have been accused of trivializing fem inism by our fu ry at the hatred of w om en expressed in pornography. W e have been told that w e m ust not use existing law s even w h ere they m ight serve us or invent n ew ones because w e will inevitably erode "freedom of speech"— but that the use of violence against pu rveyors o f pornography or property w ould not involve the same hazards. O th ers, less hypocritical, have explained that w e m ust not use law; w e m ust not use secondary boycotts, a civil liberties N o-N o (since w om en do not, w ith rare exceptions, consum e pornography, w om en cannot boycott it by not buyin g it; other strategies, constituting secondary boycotts, w ould have to be used); w e m ust not, o f course, dam age property, nor do w e have the right to insult or harass. W e have even been criticized for picketing, the logic being that an exhibitor of porn ography m ight cave in under the pressure w hich w ould constitute a dangerous precedent.

T h e m en h ave counselled us to be silent so that "freedom of speech" will survive. T h e only lim itation on it will be that w om en simply will

not h ave it— no loss, since w o m en h ave not had it. Such a lim itation does not 'o ffe n d " the First A m en d m en t o r male civil libertarians.

T h e First A m en d m en t, it should be noted, belongs to those w h o can bu y it. M en h ave the econom ic clout. P ornograp h ers have em pires. W om en are econom ically disadvantaged and barely have token access to the media. A d efen se o f p o rn ograph y is a d efen se of the brute use o f m on ey to en cou rage violence against a class of persons w h o do not h a v e— and h ave n ever had— the civil rights vou ch safed

to

m en

as

a

class.

The

g ro w in g

p o w er

of

the

p orn ographers significantly dim inishes th e likelihood that w o m en will ev er experience freed om o f a n y th in g — certainly not sexual selfdeterm ination , certain ly not freed om o f speech.

T h e fact o f the m atter is that if the First A m en d m en t does not w o rk fo r w o m en , it does not w o rk. W ith th at prem ise as principle, perhaps th e good law yers m igh t vo lu n tarily put a w a y the d irty pictures and fig u re out a w a y to m ake freed om o f speech the reality for w o m en that it already is fo r the literary and visual pimps. Y es, th ey m ight, th ey could; bu t th ey will not. T h e y h ave th eir priorities set. T h e y k n o w w h o co u n ts and w h o does not. T h e y k n o w , too, w h a t attracts and w h a t really offen ds.

Pornography and Male Supremacy 1981

This was written as a speech, my part of a debate on pornography with civil liberties lawyer and Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz, who recently went on the P en th o u se payroll but had no direct ties with the pornographers that I know of at the time of the debate. The debate was sponsored by The Schlesinger Library for Women at Radcliffe College, Cambridge, Massachusetts. In his autobiography, T h e B est D e fe n se , M r Dershowitz claims that he was threatened during the course of the debate by lesbians with bicycle chains. He wasn't; there were no bicycle chains and no threats. He continuously insulted the audience of mostly women and they talked back to him with loud and angry eloquence. The A C L U defends the "hecklers veto"— the right of hecklers to shout a speaker down; but when women answer misogynist insults with cogent, selfrespecting speech, M r Dershowitz doesn't like speech so much anymore. Even though he has spent years defending the pornographers in the name of principled free speech, he suppressed the tape of the debate by refusing to give permission for its distribution. This piece has never been published before.

W

e live in

a system o f po w er that is m ale-suprem acist. This

m eans that society is organized on the assum ption that men

are superior to w om en and that w o m en are inferior to m en. M ale suprem acy is regarded as being either divine or natural, depending on the proclivities of the apologist for it. Theologically, G od is the suprem e male, the Father, and the men of flesh and blood one m ight m eet on the streets or in the corridors of universities are created in His image. T h ere is also a divine thou gh hum an though divine Son, and a phallic H oly G h o st w h o penetrates w o m en as light penetrates a w in dow . In both Jewish and C hristian tradition, w o m en are dirty,

inclined to evil, not fit fo r the responsibilities o f religious or civil citizenship, should be seen and not heard, are destined, or predestined as it w ere, fo r sexual use and reproduction and have no o th er value.

A lso, in both traditions (which are Father and Son respectively), the sexuality o f w o m en is seen as intrinsically seductive and sluttish, by its natu re a provocation to w h ich m en respond. In theological term s, m en are superior and w o m en are inferior because God/H e m ade it so, giving w o m en a n atu re appropriate to their anim al fu n ctions and m en a natu re w ith capacities that raise them abo ve all o th er creatures.

T h e biological a rg u m en t is even sillier, but because it is secular and university-sponsored, it has m ore credibility am o n g intellectuals.

T h ro u g h o u t patriarchal history, n ot just n o w , biological d eterm inists h ave m ade tw o essential claims: first, that m ale superiority to w o m en resides in an organ or a fluid or a secretion or a not-yet-d iscovered but u rg en tly anticipated speck on a gene; and second, that w e should stu d y prim ates, fish, and insects to see h o w th ey m an age, especially w ith their w o m en . Sociobiologists and eth ologists, the latest kinds o f biological d eterm inists, are selective in the species th ey stu d y and the conclusions th ey d ra w because their a rg u m e n t is political, not scientific. T h e m ale, th ey say, regardless o f w h a t bug th ey are observin g, is naturally superior because he is n aturally dom inant because he is n aturally aggressive and so are his sperm ; the fem ale is n atu rally com pliant and n aturally subm issive and exists in ord er to be fucked and bear babies. N o w , fish do not reproduce th ro u gh fucking; bu t th at did not stop K onrad L oren z's fo llo w ers from holding up the cichlid as an exam ple to the hu m an w o m an . T h e cichlid is a prehistoric fish, and according to L oren z the m ale cichlids could not m ate unless the fem ale cichlids d em on strated aw e. K a te M illett w o n d ers in Sexual Politics h o w one m easu res a w e in a fish. B ut biological determ inists do not w ait around to a n sw e r such silly questions: th ey jum p from species to species as suits their political purposes. A n d of co u rse there are species th ey do avoid: spiders, praying m antises, and cam els, for instance, since the fem ales of th ese species kill or m aim th e m ale a fter intercourse. Biological d eterm in ists do not find such behaviors instru ctive. T h e y love the gall w asp, w h ich th ey h ave a ffectio n a tely nicknam ed the "killer w asp "— so on e g ets an idea o f its ch a ra cter— and th ey do not pay m uch atten tion to the bee, w h a t w ith its queen.

T h e re are also relatively egalitarian prim ates w h o n ever g et a

m ention, and male penguins that care for the youn g, and so forth.

A nd o f course, no biological determ inist has yet found the bug, fish, fow l, or even baboon w h o had m anaged to w rite Middlemarch.

H um ans create culture; even w om en create culture. "Sociobiology" or "eth ology" m ay be new words, but biological argum ents fo r the superiority o f one grou p over another are not new . T h ey are as old as genocide and slave labor. If w o m en are held to be a natural class that exists to be fucked and to bear babies, then any m ethod used to get w om en to do w h at they exist to do is also natural. A n d — to add insult to injury— they dare to call it M oth er N ature.

T h e biological determ inists believe precisely w h at the theologians believe: that w om en exist to be sexually used by m en, to reproduce, to keep the cave clean, and to obey; failing w hich both m en of religion and m en of nature hypothesize that hitting the fem ale m ight solve h er problem. In theological term s, G od raised m an above all oth er creatures; in biological term s, man raised him self. In both system s of th ough t, man is at the top, w h ere he belongs; w om an is under him, literally and figuratively, w h ere she belongs.

E very area o f conflict regarding the rights o f w om en ultim ately boils d ow n to the same issue: w h a t are w om en for; to w h at use should w om en be p u t— sexually and reproductively. A society will be concerned that the birth rate is not high en ough, but not that there is a paucity o f books produced by w om en. For w o m en as a class, sex and reproduction are presum ed to be the v e ry essence of life, w hich m eans that o u r fate unfolds in the opening of o u r thighs and the phallic penetration o f our bodies and the introjection of sperm into o u r vaginas and the appropriation o f o u r uteruses. In The Dialectic of Sex, Shulam ith Firestone w rote: "Sex class is so deep as to be invisible. " T h at is because sex class is seen as the w o rk of G od or nature, not men; and so the possession o f w o m e n s bodies by m en is considered to be the correct and proper use o f w om en.

In m ale-suprem acist term s, sex is phallic sex; it is often called possession or conquest or taking. A w om an 's body is taken or conquered

or

possessed

o r— to

use

an oth er

supposedly

sexy

sy n o n ym — violated; and the m eans of the taking o r possessing or violating is penile penetration.

T h e sexual colonialization of w om en 's bodies is a m aterial reality: m en control the sexual and reproductive uses of w om en's bodies. In

this system o f male pow er, rape is the paradigm atic sexual act. T h e w ord "rape" com es from the Latin rapere, w hich m eans to steal, seize, or carry aw ay. T h e first dictionary definition of rape is still "the act of seizing and carryin g o ff by fo rce. " A second m eaning of rape is "the act o f physically forcing a w o m an to h ave sexual in terco u rse. " Rape is first abduction, kidnapping, the taking of a w o m an by force.

K idnapping, or rape, is also the first k n o w n form o f m arriage— called "m arriage by cap tu re. " T h e second kn o w n form o f m arriage is basically prostitution: a father, rather than allow the th eft o f his d au gh ter, sells her. M ost social arran gem en ts for the exch an ge of w o m en operate on one ancient m odel or the other: stealing, w h ich is rape; o r bu yin g and selling, w hich is prostitution.

T h e relationship o f prostitution to rape is simple and direct: w h a te v e r can be stolen can be sold. T h is m eans that w o m en w e re both stolen and sold and in both cases w e re sexual com m odities; and w h en practices w e re codified into law s, w o m en w e re defined as sexual chattel. W om en are still basically view ed as sexual ch a ttel— socially, legally, culturally, and in practice. Rape and prostitution are central co n tem p o rary fem ale experiences; w o m en as a class are seen as belonging to m en as a class and are system atically kept su bservien t to m en; m arried w o m en in m ost instances h ave lost sexual and rep rod u ctive control o f th eir o w n bodies, w hich is w h a t it m eans to be sexual chattel.

T h e principle that w h a te v e r can be stolen can be sold applies not o n ly to w o m en as such, but also to the sexu ality o f w o m en . T h e sexu ality o f w o m en has been stolen o u trigh t, appropriated by m en — conquered, possessed, taken, violated; w o m en have been system atically

and

absolutely

denied

the

right to sexu al self-

d eterm ination and to sexual integrity; and because the sexu ality of w o m en has been stolen, this sexu ality itself, it— as distinguished from an individual w o m an as a sentient bein g — it can be sold. It can be rep resen ted pictorially and sold; the idea or su ggestion o f it can be sold; represen tation s o f it in w o rd s can be sold; signs and g estu re s that d en ote it can be sold. M en can take this sexu a lity — steal it, rape it— and m en can pim p it.

W e do not k n o w w h en in h isto ry p o rn o g rap h y as such first appeared. W e do k n o w that it is a product o f cu ltu re, specifically m alesu prem acist

cu ltu re,

and

that

it com es

a fter

both

rape

and

prostitution. Pornography can only develop in a society that is viciously m ale-suprem acist, one in which rape and prostitution are not only well-established but system atically practiced and ideologi­ cally endorsed. Feminists are often asked w h eth er pornography causes rape. T h e fact is that rape and prostitution caused and continue

to cause pornography.

Politically, culturally, socially,

sexually, and econom ically, rape and prostitution generated por­ nography; and pornography depends fo r its continued existence on the rape and prostitution o f w om en.

T h e w ord pornography com es from the ancient G reek porne and graphos: it m eans "the graphic depiction o f w h o re s. " Porne m eans "w h o re, " specifically the low est class o f w h ore, w hich in ancient G reece w as the brothel slut available to all male citizens. T h ere w ere distinct classes o f prostitutes in ancient Greece: the porne w as the sexual cow . She w as, simply and clearly and absolutely, a sexual slave.

Graphos m eans "w riting, etching, or d raw in g. " T h e w h ores called porneia w ere captive in brothels, w hich w ere designated as such by h u ge phalluses painted on or constructed near the door. T h ey w ere not allowed out, w ere never educated, w e re barely dressed, and in general w ere m iserably treated; th ey w ere the sexual garbage o f G reek society. W ives w ere kept in nearly absolute isolation, allowed the com pany o f slaves and you n g children only.

H igh-class prostitutes, a class distinct from the porneia and from w ives both, had the only freedom o f m ovem ent accorded w om en, and w ere the only educated w om en.

T w o very significant w ords originated in the ancient G reece m any of

us

revere: democracy and

pornography.

D em ocracy

from

its

beginnings excluded all w om en and som e m en. Pornography from its beginnings justified and prom oted this exclusion of all w om en by p resenting the sexuality of all w om en as the sexuality o f the brothel slut. T h e brothel slut and the sexuality of the brothel slut had been stolen and sold— raped and prostituted; and the rape and prostitution o f that captive and degraded being w ith h er captive and degraded sexuality

is precisely

the

sexual conten t o f pornography.

In

pornography, the will of the chattel w h o re is syn on ym o u s w ith her function: she is purely fo r sex and her function is defined as her n ature and her will. T h e isolation o f w ives w as based on the conviction that w om en w ere so sexually voracious on male term s that

w ives could not be let o u t— or they w ou ld naturally turn w horish.

T h e chattel w h o re w as the natural w om an , the w om an w ith o u t the civilizing discipline o f m arriage. T h e chattel w h o re, o f course, as w e k n o w , w as the product o f the civilizing discipline of slavery, but m en did not then and do not n o w see it that w ay.

P orn ography illustrated and expressed this valuation of w o m en and w o m e n s sexuality, and that is w h y it w as nam ed pornography— "th e graphic depiction o f w h o re s. " D epicting w o m en as w h o re s and the sexu ality o f w o m en as sluttish is w h a t porn ograph y does. Its job in the politically coercive and cruel system o f male suprem acy is to ju stify and perpetu ate the rape and prostitution from w h ich it springs. T h is is its function, w hich m akes it incom patible w ith any notion o f freedom , unless one sees freed om as the right o f m en to rape and to prostitu te w o m en . P orn ograph y as a gen re says that the stealing and bu yin g and selling o f w o m en are not acts of force or abu se because w o m en w a n t to be raped and prostituted because that is the natu re o f w o m en arid the n atu re o f fem ale sexuality. G loria Steinem has said that cu ltu re is successful politics. A s a cultural ph en om en on , p o rn ograph y is the political trium ph of rape and p rostitu tion o ver all fem ale rebellion and resistance.

A piece o f G reek p o rn ograph y m ay h ave been a d raw in g on a vase or an etching. N o live m odel w as required to m ake it; no specific sexual act had to be com m itted in order for it to exist. Rape, prostitution, battery, p orn ograph y, and o th er sex-based abuse could be conceptualized as separate phenom ena. In real life, o f course, th ey w e re all m ixed together: a w o m an w a s beaten, then raped; raped, then beaten, then prostituted; prostitu ted, then beaten, then raped, and so on. A s far back as w e k n o w , w h o reh o u ses h ave provided live sex sh o w s in w h ich , necessarily, p o rn ograp h y and prostitution w e re one and the sam e thing. W e k n o w that the w orld 's forem ost p orn ographer, the M arqu is de Sade, tortured , raped, im prisoned, beat, and b o u gh t w o m en and girls. W e k n o w that influential male thin kers and artists w h o en th u sed about rape or prostitution or b a ttery had, in m an y cases, raped or b o u gh t or battered w o m en or girls and w e re also u sers and o ften d evo tees o f p orn ograp h y. W e k n o w that w h en the technical m eans o f graphic depiction w e re lim ited to w ritin g, etching, and d raw in g, p o rn ograp h y w as m ostly an indulgence o f upper-class m en, w h o w e re literate and w h o had

m on ey to spend on the alm ost alw ays expensive etchings, draw ings, and w ritings. We kn o w that pornography flourished as an upperclass male pleasure w hen the p o w er of upper-class men knew virtually no limitation, certainly w ith regard to w om en: in feudal societies, for instance. But in societies that did not find m uch to oppose in the rape and prostitution of w om en, there w ere certainly no inquiries, no investigations, no political or philosophical or scientific searches, into the role pornography played in acts of forced sex or battery. W hen pornography w as in fact w riting, etching, or d raw ing, it w as possible to consider it som ething exclusively cultural, som ething on paper not in life, and even partly esthetic or intellectual.

Such a view w as not accurate, but it w as possible. Since the invention o f the cam era, any such view of pornography is com pletely despicable and corrupt. T hose are real w om en being tied and hung, gutted and trounced on, whipped and pissed on, gang-banged and hit, penetrated by dangerous objects and by animals. It is im portant to note that men have

not

found

it

necessary— not

legally,

not

morally,

not

sexually— to m ake distinctions betw een d raw ing and w riting on the one hand and the use o f live w om en on the other. W here is the visceral outcry, the fam ous humanist outcry, against the tying and hanging and chaining and bruising and beating o f w om en? W here is the visceral recognition, the humanist recognition, that it is impossible and inconceivable to tolerate— lei alone to sanction or to apologize fo r— the tying and hanging and chaining and bruising and beating of w om en? I am saying w h at no one should have to say, w hich is simply that one does not do to hum an beings w h at is done to w om en in pornography.

And

why

are these things done to w om en

in

p orn ography? T h e reasons m en give are these: en te rtain m e n t fun, expression, sex, sexual pleasure, and because the w om en w an t it.

Instead of any so-called hum anist o utcry against the inhum anity of the use o f w om en in p o rn ograph y— an o u tcry that w e m ight expect if dogs or cats w ere being treated the sam e w a y — there has been the pervasive, self-congratulatory, indolent, m ale-suprem acist assum p­ tion that the use of w om en in porn ography is the sexual will of the w om an, expresses her sexuality, her character, her nature, and appropriately dem onstrates a legitim ate sexual function o f hers. This is the sam e assum ption about the nature o f w o m en and the nature of fem ale sexuality that m en have alw ays used to justify the raping and

prostitutin g of w om en . It is no less believed today than w h en G re ek m en im prisoned chattel w h o res in the fifth cen tu ry BC. A lm ost w ith o u t exception, the m ain prem ise o f po rn ograp h y is that w o m en w a n t to be forced, h u rt, and cru elly used. T h e m ain p roo f o f the p o w e r o f this belief is w h en the fem ale victim o f rape, battery, or incest is blamed for the crim e. B ut the proo f is also in the size and g ro w th o f the po rn ograp h y industry; the ever-increasin g viciousness o f the m aterial itself; the g rea ter acceptance o f p o rn ograp h y as part o f the social and the dom estic en viron m en t; the ever-exp an d in g alliances b etw een porn ographers and law yers, porn ograph ers and journalists, porn ographers and politicians. P orn ograp h y is n o w used in increasing num bers o f medical schools and o th er institutions o f h igh er learning that teach "hu m an sexu ality. " T h e p o rn ograph y is e v e ry w h e re , and its apologists are e v e ry w h e re , and its users are ev e ry w h e re , and its pim ps are rich, and su rely if w e assum ed th at the w o m en in the p h otograph s and film s w e re really hu m an beings and not by natu re chattel w h o re s w e w o u ld not h a ve been able to stand it, to acquiesce, to collaborate th ro u gh silence o r cow ardice or, as som e in this room h ave done, to collaborate actively. If w e assum ed that these w o m en w e re hum an , not chattel w h o res by natu re, w e w ou ld d estro y that in d u stry — w ith o u r bare hands if w e could— because it steals and bu ys and sells w o m en ; it rapes and p rostitu tes w o m en . In 1978, Forbes m agazine reported that the p o rn og rap h y in d u stry w as a $4-billion-a-year business, larger than the convention al film and record industries com bined. A big part o f the p o rn og rap h y business is cash-and-carry: fo r instance, the film loops, w h e re one deposits qu arters fo r a m inu te o r so o f a w o m an being fucked by N azis or th e like. A h u ge part o f the p o rn ograph y business is m ail-order. H ere one finds the especially scurrilous m aterial, including both m agazines and film s o f w o m en being tortured , tied, h u n g , and fucked by large anim als, especially dogs. Child p o rn o g ra p h y — still p h o to grap h s and film s— is obtained u nd er the co u n ter o r th ro u g h m ail-order. B ooks of child p o rn o g rap h y that are print w ith d ra w in gs and som e m agazines w ith p hoto grap h s can be obtained in d ru g sto res as w ell as sex shops in urban areas. T h e ab o ve-gro u n d slick so-called m e n s e n te rta in ­ m ent m agazin es are flourishing, and e v e ry indication is that the Forbes fig u re o f a $4-billion in d u stry w as lo w to begin w ith and is n o w co m p letely outdated. Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler to g e th e r sell

fifteen million copies a m onth. According to Folio, a m agazine for professionals in m agazine m anagem ent, United States m agazines w ith the greatest overseas new sstand dollar sales w ere (1) Playboy w ith well over ten million dollars in foreign new sstand sales; (2) Penthouse w ith well over nine million dollars in foreign new sstand sales; (3) Oui; (4) Gallery, ow ned by F. Lee Bailey w h o surprisingly could not convince a jury that Patricia H earst had been raped; (5) Scientific American; and (6) Hustler. A lso in the top ten are Vogue, which consistently publishes the w o rk of S and M photographer H elm ut N ew ton , and Easy Riders, a m otorcycle, gang-bang, fuck-the-bitchw ith -your-Iron -C ross kind o f m agazine. T his w as as o f O ctober 1980. According to Mother ]ones m agazine, also in 1980, there are three to four times as m any adult bookstores in the United States as there are M cD o n ald s Restaurants. A nd the live exhibition of w om en displaying genitals or being used in sex of various descriptions or being tied and whipped is increasing. And there is cable television and the

hom e video m arket, both potentially huge and currently

expanding m arkets for pornographers w h o use live w om en. W om en.

Real w om en. Live w om en. C h attel w hores.

N o w , som e people are afraid that the w orld will be turned into a nuclear charnel house; and so th ey fight the nuclear industries and lobbies; and they do not spend significant am ounts o f their time debating w h eth er the nuclear industries have the right to threaten hum an life or not. Som e people fear that the w orld is turning, place by place, into a concentration camp; and so th ey fight for those w h o are hounded, persecuted, tortured, and th ey do not suggest that the rights of those w h o persecute supersede the rights of the persecuted in im portance— unless, of course, the persecuted are only w om en and the torture is called "sex. " Som e fem inists see the w orld turning into a w h o reh o u se— h o w frivolous w e alw ays a re— a w h oreh ou se, in French maison d'abattage, w hich literally m eans "house of slau gh ter. " W horehouses have been concentration cam ps fo r w om en. W om en have been kept in them like caged anim als to do slave labor, sex labor, labor appropriate to the nature, function, and sexuality of the chattel w h o re and her kind. T h e spread of porn ograph y that uses live w om en ,

real w om en, is the

spread

of

the

w h oreh ou se, the

concentration cam p for w om en, the house o f sexual slaughter. N o w I ask you: w h at are w e going to do?

Women Lawyers and Pornography 1980

This speech was given at a conference of women law students and lawyers held at Yale University Law School in March 1980. In it I discuss throat rape briefly, for the first time. Gloria Steinem and I each had independent sources that had seen women dead in hospital emergency rooms from this kind of rape. They would not come forward. I agonized about whether to talk about throat rape at all.

Gloria had written an article that said women were being raped this way, but it hadn't been published yet. I did say it, citing it to Gloria's forthcoming article. I can't tell you how horrible it was— the night before— to try to figure out whether in discussing this new rape one somehow had a role in spreading it. One has to tell women. Otherwise only the rapists know about it. But in an exploitative society, to bring a new form of rape into the spotlight is a sickening responsibility.

I had been raped this way, and s o l felt especially responsible and especially sick.

This piece has never been published before.

I

a m h o n o r e d to have been invited here today, but I m u st tell

y o u that it is stran ge fo r m e to be speakin g at Y ale L aw School to law yers. I once w a n ted to be a law yer, but, fo rtu n a tely or

u n fo rtu n ately , becam e a crim inal first— w h e n I w a s eigh teen , in a d em on stration against the V iet N am W ar. M y visions o f m yse lf as C laren ce D a rro w o r P erry M ason w e re supplanted by the reality o f bein g brutalized in jail and in co u rt both. For a lon g tim e a fte r that experience, it did not seem possible to m e that one could be a la w y er (for eith er side) and a d ecent h u m an being also. T h e in ven tion of th e fem inist la w y e r in the last several years has changed m y m ind— a little.

1 h a ve to start o u t by telling y o u fran kly that I can n ot speak to you

as a law yer m ight on any of the issues involved in the discussion of pornography. I am m ostly a self-educated w riter, a resolute street activist, som eone w h o is both contem ptuous of the law and afraid of it. N othing in m y ow n experiences— w ith male law yers of the Left, for instance— has made me either less contem ptuous or less afraid.

T h e w ays in w hich fem inists have learned to use the law — to fight for econom ic dignity, to fight fo r reproductive freedom , to fight against sexual harassm ent, to initiate som e reform s w ith respect to rape, to fight for the protection of battered w o m en — have very much earned m y respect. But the real progress of w om en has been m inuscule; and the legal system in w hich fem inists struggle for change is still rotten to the core. T h e law w as built on the subjection o f w om en , and that subjection is unendingly perpetuated in both the application and the spirit of the law , w ith the result that fem inist law yers and legal w orkers spill blood for rew ards that are both too little and too late.

A nd yet, the survival of w om en day to day and year to year depends on these small advances, these victories that, h o w ev er big, are never big enough. W ithout them , w e w ould have no hope, no fu tu re, and a present impossible

to endure.

W henever you secure for any

w o m an — be she prostitute, w ife, lesbian, or all o f those and m ore— one shred o f real justice, you have given her and the rest of us a little m ore time, a little m ore dignity: and tim e and dignity give us the chance to organize, to speak out, to fight back.

But w ith ou t basic structural changes in this society— changes that w ould radically transform this system o f la w — you cannot do m ore than rescue som e of us m om entarily from the assaults that constitute a fem ale life— the petty assaults and the grand assaults, the bonebreaking assaults and the m ind-destroying assaults. Tem porary rescue will not stop the rape, the battery, the sexual harassm ent, the econom ic indignities, the tyrann y o f male or state control of reproduction.

T em porary

rescue

will

not

stop

the

violence.

T em p o rary rescue will not protect w o m en from tom orrow .

If w e begin— as I think w e m u st— w ith the prem ise that each and e v ery w om an has an absolute right to sexual and reproductive selfdeterm ination, then w e have begun outside the law: outside its intention, its purpose, its practice, and its effect. W e do not begin outside the law in the N ietzschean sense of being above and beyond

the law , superior to it because w e are great and the law is pitiful. W e begin outside the law because w e are belo w the law , despised by it, denied by it, condem ned by it to sexual, reproductive, and econom ic servility. W e are outside the law because w e are pitiful and the taw is great.

N o issue concern ing w o m en can be discussed as if w o m en had contributed to the d evelopm ent of the law as an institution, to the en fo rcem en t o f the law , to the interpretation o f the law , or to the ethics o f the law. N o issue concern ing w o m en can be discussed as if the law w orked in the interests o f w o m e n — in behalf of o u r rights.

N o issue concerning w o m en can be discussed as if w o m en w e re tru ly participants in culture, in p ow er, in the creation of values. N o issue concern ing w o m en can be discussed as if w o m en w e re sexually self­ determ inin g or intellectually self-resp ectin g or econom ically selfsustaining. C ertain ly, the issue o f p o rn ograp h y can n ot be discussed as if w o m en had basic hu m an rights of bodily in teg rity or inviolability, or freed om o f m ovem en t or speech, or even simple, prosaic equality b efore the law . P orn o grap h y origin ates in a real social system in w h ich w o m en are sexu ally colonialized and h ave been fo r h undreds o f cen turies. P o rn o g ra p h y — w h e th e r as g en re or as in d u stry or as aid to m astu rbatio n — origin ates in th at system , flourish es in that system , and has no m eaning or existen ce outside that system .

P orn o grap h y

is

inseparable

from

the

undeniable bru tality

of

com m onplace m ale usage o f the fem ale.

T h e w o rd pornography m eans "the graphic depiction o f w h o re s. " W h ores exist to se rv e m en sexually. W h ores exist only w ith in a fra m e w o rk

of

m ale

sexual

dom ination.

Indeed,

outside

that

fra m e w o rk the notion o f w h o res w ou ld be absurd. T h e w o rd whore is incom prehensible unless one is im m ersed, as w e all are, in the lexicon o f m ale dom ination. M en h ave created the gro u p , the type, the concept,

the

epithet,

the

insult,

the

in d u stry,

th e

trade,

the

com m od ity, the reality o f w o m an as w h o re. But ev en the w o rd whore does not co n v e y the w h o le spirit o f this valu ation of w o m en because w e co m m o n ly use it as a sy n o n ym fo r the w o rd prostitute, the w o m an w h o is paid to se rv e m en sexually. T h e w o rd that really co n n otes the porn ographic eth os is slut. T h e idea at the base o f all p o rn og rap h y is th at w o m en are insatiable sluts w h o crave abuse. In p o rn o g ra p h y — if y o u can believe it— even p rostitu tes are sluts.

T h e basic action of pornography is rape: rape of the vagina, rape of the rectum , and now , after the phenom enal success of Deep Throat, rape of the throat. Yes, the throat. According to Gloria Steinem in the M ay issue o f Ms. m agazine, som e em ergency room doctors believe that real victim s of suffocation from rape o f the throat m ay be on the increase. Did w om en die from throat rape before Deep Throat? I do not know . W ith the popularity o f throat rape in current pornography, will the num ber o f deaths from it increase? I think so.

H ere is a typical passage from a pornographic novel (so-called) that celebrates rape o f the throat. In this scene, the w om an is on her knees w ith the Super Stud Hero's cock in her m outh. He has a gun pointed at her head.

He could kill me with [his cock], sh e th o u g h t. H e d id n 't n ee d a g u n in h is han d.

A s h is h o t o r g a n filled h e r m o u th a n d th ro a t, S a n d y fe lt h im b e g in n in g to th r u s t h is h ip s fo r w a r d . T h e s h in y c o c k h e a d c ra m m e d in to th e b a ck o f h e r th ro a t. S h e tried to ta k e a s m u c h o f his c o c k in to h e r m o u th as possib le, b u t it filled h e r th r o a t so fu ll th a t sh e c o u d n 't [sic] a t first g e t it d o w n . S h e s w a llo w e d an d s w a llo w e d a t e a c h o f h is fo r w a r d th r u s ts , b u t h e r th ro a t w o u ld n 't stre tc h la rg e e n o u g h to a c c o m m o d a te him . It w a s n 't u n til h e g ra b b e d h e r h a ir w ith his le ft fist a n d h eld h e r h e a d a g a in s t th e fo rc e o f his to o l th a t sh e w a s a b le to relax h e r th ro a t m u sc le s e n o u g h th a t his co ck rap ed its w a y o v e r h e r to n g u e and th r o a t an d b u rie d itse lf in th e p a ssa g e to h e r sto m a c h .

Pain se a re d th r o u g h h e r th ro a t like s h e h ad s w a llo w e d a h o t b r a n d in g iro n a s h e r th r o a t s tre tc h e d to its m a x im u m c a p a city. A t fir s t sh e th o u g h t sh e w o u ld b e u n a b le to b r e a th e as h is e re c tio n p u m p e d lu s tfu lly an d le w d ly in a n d o u t o f h e r m o u th , b u t a s sh e re la x e d h e r th r o a t m o re and m o re , sh e d is c o v e re d th a t sh e c o u ld su c k in air d u r in g his o u t s tr o k e s a n d b e se t to e n jo y h is p a in fu lly d e lic io u s fo r w a r d th ru s ts . S h e n u rse d g r e e d ily at his b o d y . (The Ravished Girlfriend, pp. 6 0 -6 1 )

N ote that the fem ale quickly learns to love w h a t is done to her: in fact, she becom es greedy. T his th em e is im portant. In pornography, a w om an is forced, she is horribly hurt; and the greater the force and the m ore terrible the pain, the g reater is her sexual desire and gratification. She becom es greed y fo r m ore pain, m ore force, m ore abuse, because that is her true nature. A n y behavior or attitude on h er part that is not greed for pain and force is presented as pretense or sexual ignorance.

Neil M alam uth

and James C h eck ,

tw o psychologists at the

U n iversity o f M anitoba in Canada, have isolated w h a t they call "the belief in victim pleasure" as an essential factor in the arousal of the male. ("Penile T u m escen ce and Perceptual R esponses to Rape as a Function

of

V ictim s

M an u script. ) T h eir

Perceived

stu d y

R eactions, " June 1979,

is but one

p.

of a host o f n ew

21. and

conscientious studies that do d em on strate a significant connection b etw e en exp o su re to po rn ograp h y and aggression against w om en.

A ccordin g to M alam uth and C h eck , "[th e male] subjects w e re considerably m ore sexually aroused to a rape depiction in w h ich the victim w as perceived b y the rapist to becom e involu ntarily sexually aroused than w h en she co n tin u o u sly abhorred the assau lt. " (pp.

2 0 -21) A lso, m en w h o believed in victim pleasure w e re m ore likely to w a n t to rape, to report that th ey w ou ld rape if th ey could be certain of not being cau gh t or punished. M alam u th and C h e ck point o u t that this inform ation is especially significant because n u m erou s studies h ave sh o w n that m an y actual rapists believe that their victim s did experience pleasure no m atter h o w badly th ey w e re hurt.

In all p o rn ograp h y, the "belief in victim pleasure" is fun dam ental and o verw h elm in g . P orn o grap h y effectiv ely en cou rages and pro足 m otes rape by en cou ragin g and prom otin g this belief, this lie, about the pleasure o f the victim in being forced and hurt. T h e pin-ups are foreplay; th ey sh o w the w o m an w ith the open invitation. T h e rest of p o rn og rap h y sh o w s w h a t she invites: bondage, pain, and acts of forced

sex

inseparable

from

acts

of

ex tre m e

brutality.

N ow

p o rn og rap h y sh o w s w o m en loving and adorin g th roat rape; n o w increasing n u m bers o f real w o m en m ay be d yin g from it.

W om en m istakenly think that p o rn og rap h y is largely built on the good

girl/bad

girl

or

the

M ad onna/w hore

them e.

W ith

rare

excep tions, it is not. It is built on the w h o re/w h o re them e. N o p ostu rin g of the fem ale ultim ately contradicts h er g ree d y desire to be used and h u rt. T h e sexual insatiability o f the fem ale m eans that she cann ot really be abused, no m atter w h a t is d one to or w ith her. A b u se m eans the m isuse o f som eone. T h e abused person is credited w ith h avin g a will, an ethic, o r rights that h ave been violated. T h e fem ale cann ot be abused so long as the use m ade o f h e r is sexu al w ith in the m ale valu e system , because h er pu rpose on this earth is to be used sexu ally and h er fu n dam en tal n atu re as defined by m en requires

ra p e, bondage, and pain. This sexual insatiability also m eans that the male m ust use, and is alw ays justified in using, any form of dom ination in order to control the female. O th erw ise her sexuality will d evour him.

T h ere is pornography in which the w om an is sadistic. This type of pornography illustrates for men the consequences of losing control o ver w om en. In such pornography, a male falls prey to a sadistic w o m an — w h o has w hip in hand and spiked heels planted firm ly in his scrotum — because o f a failure o f m asculinity on his part. T h e text often suggests that perhaps he is a faggot, or, even w orse, that in a w eak m om ent he has sim ply failed to be cruel en ough. Such a failure m akes him vulnerable in the literal sense o f the w ord, m eaning subject to assault. T h e sadistic w om an punishes him for not being sufficiently male. In the end, a really m asculine man inevitably m anages to rape and beat the h eretofore uppity w om an, and he does so w ith such stunning brutality that she finally learns her proper place. T h e sadistic w om an is often labeled a fem inist, an A m azon, or a W om en's Libber. She, too, in the end, loves being raped and hum iliated and hurt. T h e independent w om an, the fem inist w om an, the professional w om an, and, of course, the lesbian w om an, are all sh ow n to be sh rew s w h o are tru ly happy only in captivity and w h o are sexually fulfilled only through force, pain, and unrelenting penile penetration.

W hich brings me, rather reluctantly, to the politics of the penis.

W om en cannot discuss pornography as if w e are all just plain folks, as if a sex caste system based on the centrality and superiority o f the penis did not exist.

In pornography, the penis is characterized as a weapon: sw ord, knife, scissor, gun, pistol, rifle, tank, various instrum ents o f torture, steel rod, cattle prod; and all these w eapons are used in place of the penis or in conjunction w ith the penis. A n y th in g is used as a penile w eapon that can be used, including telephones, pistol hair dryers, bottles, dildos, live snakes, and so forth . T h e w om an 's sex organs are characterized as dirty and sm elly and treacherous, w hich apparently justifies the disgust and contem pt implicit in ram m ing all th ese things into her. W hile male poets and psychologists obsessively conjure up a sentim ental return to the w om b, m en's porn ography su ggests a m ilitary assault, the w o rst excesses o f police brutality, o r the kind of

annihilation associated

w ith

racist and im perialist program s of

exterm ination.

M en, not fem inists, h ave assigned this value to the penis. T h e y control the language and the porn ography, and this valuation of the penis is evident

in

ev ery

area

of

m ale culture,

not only in

porn ograph y. In the com m onplace vocabu lary o f both rom ance and sex, conqu est and possession are central. T h e penis conqu ers and possesses; the penis distinguishes the m ale con qu eror from the fem ale conquered.

P orn ography does not exist to effect som eth in g as va g u e as socalled erotic interest or sexual arousal; it exists specifically to provoke penile tum escen ce o r erection. In m ale-suprem acist culture and in m ale-suprem acist sexuality, the penis is a carrier o f aggression, a w eapon, the standard-bearer of m ale identity, the p roo f and the m easure o f m asculinity.

T h e use o f the penis to con qu er is its norm al use. In the m ale system , rape is a m atter o f d egree. T h e w ise m en of the cu ltu re posit that the male, properly developed, is essen tially sadistic in his sexuality, the fem ale m asochistic in hers. So-called norm al sex occurs w h e n the norm al sexual aggression of the m ale m eets the norm al m asochism of the fem ale not in an alley. M ale con qu est o f the fem ale is constru ed to be norm al and properly com m onplace. In this co n text, p o rn ograp h y does not express a deviant value system . O n the co n trary, it both expresses and prom otes the valu es and ethics o f m ale su p rem acy— that system based on the prim acy o f the im perial penis. T h e penis in p o rn ograp h y is the penis in rape is the penis in sex is the penis in history.

W om en cann ot discuss p o rn og rap h y as if the p h otograph s o f fem ale genitalia exist fo r som e o th e r purpose than to enable m en to experience

the

p o w er

of

the

penis.

W om en

cann ot

discuss

p o rn og rap h y as if antagonism , hostility, aggression , and a conviction o f su perio rity w e re absent fro m the penile p o w e r experienced by m en on view in g depictions o f fem ale genitalia. W om en cann ot discuss p o rn o g rap h y as if the penile p o w er experienced by m en on view in g depictions o f w o m en splayed, tied up, being fucked, being h u rt, m eant noth ing. W om en cann ot discuss p o rn ograp h y as if it existed apart fro m male su prem acy, in w h ich th e penis is the d eterm in an t of superiority. W om en can n ot discuss p o rn og rap h y as if it existed apart

from the sexual colonization of the fem ale, in w hich the penis is the prim ary instrum ent of conquest and aggression. W om en cannot discuss pornography as if the penis w ere not still being used on a m assive scale as a w eapon against w om en.

For

centuries

w om en

as

a

class

have

rem ained

basically

unresponsive to the penis as a pu rveyor of sexual pleasure. Those unpoliticized w o m en — m ore often called frigid or prudes— you kn ow the litany o f epithets— understand that the issue is not their pleasure but their conquest. He takes her; he takes a w ife.

I said that I w as som ew hat reluctant to address this issue at all. It is not an easy thing to do. Feminists have been vilified for introducing the subject o f the penis as a necessary political issue. A n exam ple of the kind of insult that greets our raising of this issue is this unsigned passage from the M arch

Playboy— you k n o w Playboy, that pro-

w om an, pro-fem inist m agazine: For the past decade, the penis has been getting a lot of bad press. One feminist wrote derisively: "We can stimulate ourselves or be stimulated by other women as well as men can stimulate us, because that unique male offering, the phallus, is of peripheral importance, or may even be irrelevant to our sexual satisfaction. " Well, sit on my face, bitch. (Playboy, "Books," vol. 27, no. 3, March 1980, p. 41) I also call you r attention to Playboy's statem ent on freedom of speech in the same issue. A man asks the Playboy "Advisor": I have sex with my girlfriend often and we both enjoy it. However, something is missing. I want her to talk dirty. I want her to say things like: "I want to feel your giant cock in my pussy!" or "Cram your prick in and screw me!" We love each other very much and I've tried talking to her. I know she would do it if she could, and she wants to talk dirty, but when she tries, nothing comes out of her mouth and she gets upset with herself.

What can we do?

Playboy's a n s w e r is this: Obviously, your girlfriend thinks that love means never having to say Cram your prick in and screw me!" She should be reminded o f her civic duty. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of expression— verbal, if not physical. (We have a hard time separating the two.) ("The P la y b o y Advisor," Playboy, vol. 27, no. 3, March 1980, p. 51)

T h ese tw o passages from Playboy— "W ell, sit on m y face, bitch"and "C ram y o u r prick in and screw m e! "— provide an an atom y o f the situation. T h e coercion of the fem ale is centered on g ettin g h er to h ave phallocentric sex. Fem inists challenge the politics, the ethics, even the efficacy o f this sexual institution, and the a n sw er is "W ell, sit on m y face, bitch. " In this sam e value system , the First A m en d m en t m eans that the w om an , a n y w om an , had better be prepared to say w h a te v e r the male w a n ts to hear, especially that w h ich enables him to h eighten his sense o f penile pow er. A nd m ost im portant, his First A m en d m en t m eans that his right to d eterm ine h er verbal expression is inseparable from his right to determ ine h er physical expression.

A s m ight be expected, porn ographers also m anipulate the im age of the fem inist: she is the sadistic w o m an w h o m u st be tam ed, the expendable w o m an w h o can be viciously insulted even as the m e n s m agazine professes its advocacy o f w o m en 's rights, the vicious prude w h o is castrating in h er hatred o f m en and sex. She is also, by im plication, the lesbian w o m an w h o a rro gan tly believes that sexual gratification does not depend on the penis. In p orn ograph y, w o m en h ave sex to g eth er to excite and please the m ale. Forcing w o m en to h ave sex to g eth er is one m eans o f hum iliating w om en. T h e real lesbian, w h o has sex w ith w o m en w ith o u t referen ce to the m ale or to the penis, is view ed by the p orn ograph ers as an implacable en em y.

T h e goal o f p o rn ograp h y, finally, is to uphold and stren g th en m ale sexual prerogatives; to perpetu ate and en erg ize m ale sexual values and practices based on the su prem acy o f the penis, based on sexualized aggression and hostility to the fem ale.

W h at w e learn from p o rn ograp h y is that this is the v e ry value system w e m u st d estro y if w e are to be free. A nd as th e Playboy advisor m akes clear, w o m en will n ever h ave freed om o f physical or verbal expression so long as love or sex m eans h avin g to say "C ram y o u r prick in and screw m e! " W e will n ever h ave freed om o f speech so lon g as it m eans h avin g to say "C ra m y o u r prick in and scre w m e! " R igh t n o w , "C ra m y o u r prick in and screw m e! " rep resen ts the su m m it o f sexual and verbal freed om fo r w om en . Fem inists are the dissen ters from this m ale-suprem acist value system . W e are the ones w ith d ifferen t ideas, political ideas, su b versive ideas. Y et the en e rg y of the civil liberties la w y ers as w ell as the po rn ograp h ers in th ese last fe w years has g on e into sh u ttin g us up. T h eir a rg u m e n t is that w h e n

w e address male sexual hegem on y as expressed in and perpetuated by porn ography— w h eth er w e do it th rou gh speaking or dem onstrating or

w ritin g— w e

are endangering

the speech of others. T h eir

suggested solution is that w e shut up. But our survival depends on untangling this knot o f forced sex, o f male pleasure, o f rape as entertainm ent and delight, of sex as hostility, of abuse as normalcy.

T h e necessity is to end the sexual colonialization of w om en.

N o w I com e back to the fact that you are law yers and legal w orkers.

W hat can you do?

First, ev ery single victory gained for w om en in the areas of rape, battery, sexual harassm ent, lesbian rights, and reproductive rights w o rks to establish som e expression of fem ale sexual integrity. Every single advance in these areas w o rks to lessen the pow er of pornographers, w h o thrive in an environ m en t w h ere the sexual victim ization o f w om en is com m onplace and u tterly m ainstream .

Second,

ev ery

legal

victory

that

results

in

the

econom ic

em pow erm en t of w om en also dim inishes the sexual stranglehold that men have on w om en. Economic dependence on men m eans sexual exploitation by m en. Economic em pow erm ent m eans that w om en do not have to barter in sex. Economic em pow erm ent w ould m ean that poor and desperate w om en w ould not be forced to turn to the pornographers fo r w ork.

Third, w om en m ust gain real access to the media in this country, to com m unication, to the means of speech. We do not have a cultural dialogue on sexual or social values: w e have a perpetual male m onologue. T h e very existence o f porn ography derives from the male m onopoly on speech: the centuries-old m onopoly on literature, philosophy, science, social science, the unm itigated male control of ideas and o f sexual ideology. P ornograph y as such could not exist in an egalitarian society; it would not have developed as a quasi-sexual institution if w o m en had been real participants in the form ulation of values, if w o m en had had the p o w er to express ideas. Every area of culture and com m unication is m ale-dom inated and m ale-controlled.

M ake no mistake: p o w er and w ealth are required to exercise freedom of

speech.

In

sim pler

days,

before

films

and

television

and

m ultinational com m unications n etw orks, w om en w ere kept illiter­ ate. W om en are still th ree-qu arters o f the w o r ld s illiterates. But

w o m en are also silenced by being kept poor and being kept out. T h e porn ographers thrive on fem ale intellectual and creative silence and insignificance. T o fight the influence and to challenge the very existen ce o f the porn ograph ers, you m ust find w a y s to d estroy the m ale m onopoly on com m unications media.

Fourth, in the next several years, fem inist activists will be on the streets d em on stratin g against porn ographers. U naccountably, there will be w idespread vandalism against p o rn o g rap h y — against displays o f po rn ograp h y and at points o f distribution. D efend these activists.

Fifth, in the n ext several years, fem inist w riters and activists are likely to experience severe police h arassm en t— conspiracy charges, police brutality, and the like. T h e police do not g o a fter porn ograph ers w h en it is w o m en w h o are protesting; th ey g o after the w o m en .

D efen d the w o m en .

Sixth , speak out. D o not be silent or passive on the issue of p orn ography. C o n fro n t, challenge. If necessary w alk out of fo ru m s in w h ich yo u are insulted or threatened or treated like dirt. Especially do not allow y o u r m ale peers in y o u r profession to define the issues for you, to b ro w b ea t you, to talk y o u d o w n , to treat y o u as if yo u are stupid because you refu se to accept the depiction o f sexual violence against w o m en as cute or m eaningless or exciting or necessary. K eep track o f the relationship of y o u r m ale colleagues to cases o f rape and b a ttery in particular: do th ey understand the crim es? do th ey abuse the victim s to d efend the crim inals? do th ey system atically defend accused rapists w h o m th ey k n o w to be g u ilty? are th ey active, not passive, in using their resou rces and talents in the interests o f w o m en o r do th e y system atically m ake sure to be on the o th er side? D o not allo w these issues to g o undiscussed o r undefined. In y o u r o w n w o rk fo r w o m en , dare to take cases that m ake y o u r male colleagues sick to death.

S even th , d efend prostitu tes, but do not allow yo u rself to be used to defen d p rostitu tion as an inevitable social institution, one th at m u st exist in perp etu ity because, a fter all, t h a t 's h o w people are, especially that's h o w w o m en are.

Eighth, do n ot take m on ey from the P layboy Foundation. Playboy m agazine has launched o n e o f the m ost sophisticated antifem inist cam paigns e v er devised. Each m on thly issue m ou n ts a n e w attack on fem inists w h o challen ge the sexu al su prem acy o f the m ale. T h e

Playboy Foundation hands out pim ps m oney. Pimps do not give aw ay anyth in g out o f the goodness o f their hearts. T h e Playboy em pire is raw male pow er, pimp power. O th e r fem inists will pay for w h at you take.

N inth, in the next decade, along w ith

the rapid spread of

pornography, violence against w om en will increase. D o not allow those w h o com m it or endorse that violence to get a w ay w ith it— be th ey individuals, organized crim e, police, or law yers.

T en th , if a w a y does not exist, invent one.

A s law yers, perhaps right n o w you cannot do more. But you are also, a fter all, w om en. I hope to see you ou t on the streets getting yo u r asses busted w ith the rest o f us.

Silence Means Dissent 1984

This was a speech, given in Toronto at a symposium on pornography and media violence. The audience was mostly right-wing. The speakers were almost all experimental researchers who had studied the relationship between pornography and violence against women: all were persuaded that there was one. lam happy to say that the audience responded with a very long, loud, standing ovation. I believe that this speech was a breakthrough

in reaching right-wing women.

H e a lth sh a rin g , a Canadian feminist magazine, published it; 6 0 M in u te s (CBS) broadcast some short excerpts from it. Shortly before speaking, I had seen, for the first time, one of H u s tle r s sexually explicit cartoons of me projected on a big screen in front of the 800 people in the auditorium. It was an exhibit in a slide show by a woman researcher whose purpose was not to hurt me but to show what pornographers do to women. I got through the speech; I managed to get off the stage, just, before becoming unconscious. There was nothing left, no light or sound or hope, nothing. Many minutes are blanked out. I have never gotten them back. A cartoon like that says, bang, you're dead, and one way or another you are, a little.

A

s

a f e m in is t

I h ave been o rgan izin g against p o rn og rap h y fo r

a long tim e. I am v e ry g ra te fu l to the research co m m u n ity,

w h ich has taken fem inist th eo ry serio u sly en o u g h to try to see if in fact p o rn o g rap h y does harm to w o m en . I say that because I am en tirely ou traged that som eon e has to stu d y w h e th e r h a n g in g a w o m an from a m eat h o o k cau ses h arm o r not. W e a re g ra tefu l to the research co m m u n ity o u t o f o u r despair and o u r d evastation , because m ostly w e are silent, and because w h e n w e speak up, nobody listens.

W e k n o w h o w to q u a n tify, w e k n o w h o w to co u n t, w e can sh o w you

the dead; yet it doesn't m atter if it com es from us. O bjectivity, as I understand it, m eans that it doesn't happen to you.

T h ere are w om en researchers w h o are trying very hard to bring w h at they kn o w as w om en into their research. T h ere are male researchers w h o have paid attention to w h at w e have said. I am not dism issing them , but I am saying that w e are living in a society w h ere you can maim and kill a w om an, and there is a question as to w h eth er or not there is a social harm . Som ebody has to study it to find out.

W e k n o w that m en like hu rting us. W e kn o w it because they do it and w e w atch them liking it. W e k n o w that men like dom inating us because they do it and w e w atch them enjoying it. W e k n o w that men like using us because they do it, and th ey do it, and th ey do it, and they do it, and they do it. A nd men don't do things that they don't like, generally speaking. T h e y like doing it and th ey like w atching it and they like w atching o th er m en do it and it is entertainm ent and men pay m oney to see it and that is one o f the reasons that m en make pornography. It's fun.

N ow , w h at w e kn o w is— the "w e " being w o m en — that there are people that it is fun for, and there are people that it is not fun for, and that w om en are the people it is not fun for.

P ornography is the sexualized subordination o f w om en. It m eans being put d ow n throu gh sex, by sex, in sex, and around sex, so that som ebody can use you as sex and have sex and have a good time. And subordination consists of a hierarchy that m eans one person is on the top and one person is on the bottom . A nd w hile hierarchy has been described

in

beautiful

ideological

term s

over

thousands

and

thousands of years, for us it is not an abstract idea because w e kn o w w h o is on top. W e usually k n o w his nam e and address. O fte n w e do.

So w e understand hierarchy, and this is a hierarchy that has m en on the top and w o m en on the bottom .

Subordination also consists of objectification. O bjectification is w h en a hum an being is turned into a thing, a com m odity, an object— som eone w h o is no longer a hum an being. T h e y 're used, because th ey're not hum an like the o th er people around; and that frequ en tly happens on the basis of their race or it happens on the basis o f their sex. It happens to w o m en on the basis of both.

A nd subordination also consists of violence, overt violence— and it's not just violence against people. It's violence against w om en. It's

violence against children w h o are v e ry closely connected to w o m en in p ow erless ness. I ts violence that isn't such a m ystery. C r a z y m aniacs don't do it. People w h o h ave p o w er o ver o th er people do it. M en do it to w om en .

N o w , if you take h ierarch y and if you take sex and if you understand that hierarch y is v e ry sexy, then w h a t you h ave is a situation in w h ich people are exploited system atically; and th ey are exploited in such a w a y that ev ery o n e thinks it's norm al. T h e people w h o are doing it think it's norm al. T h e people to w h o m it's done think it's norm al. T h e people w h o report abo ut it think it's norm al. T h e people w h o stu d y it think it's norm al. A n d it is norm al. T h a t's the th in g about it— it's actually norm al. It doesn't m ake a d ifference if it happens in private or if it happens in public, because w o m en are prim arily h u rt in private. N o w that p o rn o g rap h y is out in the w orld, w h e r e it is an officially established fo rm o f public terrorism against w o m en , w e th in k w e are dealing w ith som eth in g th at is qualitatively d ifferen t fro m an yth in g w e h ave ev er dealt w ith before. T h is is, in fact, not true, because the p o rn og rap h y g ets acted o u t on w o m en w h e th e r w o m en see the p o rn og rap h y or not. T h is is because m en use th e p o rn ograp h y w h e n it's crim inal, w h en it's illegal— th ey still h ave access to it, th ey still use it, and it still has all the consequ ences that y o u h eard about today and th ose con sequ en ces are acted o u t on th e bodies o f w o m en .

I w a n t to talk abo ut social subordination, because w o m en are not equal in this society and o n e o f the w a y s that yo u can tell is the qu ality o f o u r silence. T h e T h re e M arias o f P ortugal said (and th ey w e re put in jail for saying this) silence does not m ean consent: silence m eans dissent. W om en are the population that dissents m ost, th ro u gh silence. T h e so-called speech o f w o m en in p o rn ograp h y is silence.

Splayed legs on a page are silence. B ein g beaver, pussy, cu n t, bunnies, pets, w h a tever, that is silence. T h e w o rd s th at w o m en say in porn ograph y: that is silence. " G iv e it to m e, " "d o it to m e, " "h u rt m e, " "I w a n t it bad. ""do it m ore": th at is silence. A n d th ose w h o th in k th at is speech h a ve n e v er heard a w o m an 's voice. I w a n t to tell y o u that ev en

those scream s, ev en the scream s o f w o m e n to rtu red in

p o rn ograp h y, a re silence. M en pay m o n ey and w atch , but no one h ears a human scream . T h e y hear silence. A n d that's w h a t it m eans to be born fem ale. N o o n e h ea rs y o u scream as if y o u a re a h u m an being.

C atharine M acK innon and I w ro te a civil rights bill that makes p ornography a form of discrimination based on sex and a violation of the civil rights of w om en. W e hallucinated those rights in a fren zy of hope, in a delirium of dream ing. W e hallucinated that w om en could be recognized as hum an beings in this social system . H um an enough even to have civil rights. H um an enough to be able to assert those rights in the face o f system atic sexual exploitation, brutality and malice.

So hum an, in fact, that one w ould not have to study it to see if any harm is done w h en a w om an is tortured. So hum an that no one w ould have to study it to see if harm is done by long-term pervasive system atic exploitation, dehum anization, objectification. So hum an that one could actually assum e as a prem ise th rou gh ou t life— not just today but seven days a w eek all year long, fo rever— that w hen a w om an is being tortured, or even only exploited or even only used and used up, that a hum an being is being tortured, exploited, used and used up, and that that constitutes harm to a hum an being. Y ou don't h ave to study it. It's happening to a hum an being so it constitutes harm to a hum an being.

W e dream ed that w om en m ight be taken to be so extrem ely hum an that one w ould kn ow , even w ith ou t laboratory evidence, that w h en a w om an is diminished in h er integrity, in h er rights, hum ankind is dim inished because o f it. A nd w e though t that it m ight even be possible that a w om an could be so hum an that even the law , w hich is not big on recognizing hum an beings, m ight recognize her as being hum an en ou gh to deserve equal protection under the law. Just that hum an, not a sm idgen m ore, just that.

T hat's not even equality; that's not as hum an as m en, not really, not entirely. T hat's not asking fo r m uch, is it? So hum an that w h en the pimps, th e parasites sell her and coerce her and rape her and d estroy her and abuse her and insult h er— so that m en can be entertained by her exploitation and abuse— that those pimps and those users will have to face her in cou rt for violating her hum an rights because she is a hum an being.

P ornography is at the heart o f male suprem acy and that is true w h e th e r the porn ograph y is in public o r in private. W hen you see porn ography, you see male suprem acy; and if you look around you and you see male suprem acy, you had better believe that you 're

seeing p orn ograph y even if you don't k n o w w h ere it is in the-room .

T h e goal o f fem inists w h o are fightin g p o rn ograp h y is to end the hierarchy, the objectification, the exploitation: the dom inance of men o v e r w o m en and children.

A nd w e are going to do it. I w a n t to tell you this: if you love male su p rem acy but you abhor porn ograph y, then you do not abhor p o rn ograp h y en ou gh to do an yth in g about it. Som e people don't w a n t p o rn ograph y to be seen in public because it sh ow s som e ve ry true things about w h a t m en w a n t from w om en; fo r instance: dom inance, p o w er o ver w o m en , w om en 's inequality, th e use of w o m en as sexual objects. It also sh o w s w h a t m en do not w a n t w o m en to have: h u m an ity, in tegrity, self-determ ination and com plete and total control o ver o ur o w n bodies. W e need these so w e are not used, so that w e are not forced into sex, forced into pregnancy, forced into any sexual relationship that is not o u r choice. * It's im portant to understand that the fem inist m ovem en t against p o rn ograp h y is a g rassro o ts m ovem en t against m ale suprem acy. W e are goin g to settle fo r n oth ing less than full social and sexual equality o f the sexes. W e are goin g to g et w h a te v e r institutional changes h ave to be m ade to accom plish that. W e are going to g et self-determ ination for w o m en . W e're even goin g to get som eth in g that people call justice.

I am w o n d erin g, and I think it is w o rth thinking about, w h a t justice w o u ld look like fo r the raped and the prostituted, and I w ou ld like to k n o w h o w afraid m en really are o f w h a t that justice w ould look like.

For instance, w o u ld it look like Snuff? W ould it look like Deep Throat? It m ight. S tu d y that.

W e are goin g to stop the po rn ograp h y in the shops and in o u r lives, w h e n it's w ritte n d o w n and w h en it's acted out, and w e 're goin g to do it one w a y o r an oth er. B efo re I cam e here o n T h u rsd a y night, an o th er victim sto ry reached m e— a n o th er one in tw elv e years o f listening to w o m en w h o h a ve been h u rt by p o rn o g rap h y — fro m a w o m an w h o had been tied up, raped, photographed. T h e m an had m ade h undreds o f pictures o f her, he had m ade h u n d reds of pictures o f o th er w o m en , he had a list o f nam es o f the o th e r w o m en he w a s going to assault.

Feminists took over the stage at the conference to dem onstrate for reproductive rights and lesbian rights, the denial of those rights being (in com m on with pornography) sexual colonization.

She w en t to the police; they didn't do anything. She w en t to som e people w h o k n e w the man; they didn't do anything. N othing, nothing, nothing. T h at is typical. W hat he said to her w hen he tied her up, after having raped her and having started photographing her w as, "Sm ile or 111 kill you. I can get lots of m oney fo r pictures of w o m en w h o smile w h en they're tied up like you . " I w a n t you to think about the w a y w om en smile. I w an t you to think about it every m inute of every day, and I w a n t to suggest to the m en in this audience, in particular, that you had better be afraid of w o m en w h o learn to smile at you that w ay.

Against the Male Flood: Censorship, Pornography, ana Equality 1985

Early in 1 9 8 4 , 1 was asked to write an essay on the civil rights law recognizing pornography as sex discrimination that Catharine A . MacKinnon and I had conceived and the Minneapolis City Council had passed on December 30, 1983.

A chief-editor, a student (all law school reviews are edited by students), went to considerable effort to persuade me to do this, especially promising no interference, his quid pro quo for no money and a tiny circulation. I worked for many months on my essay and then the boy-editor, who had lost his manners in the interim, refused to publish it unless I took out points, themes, connections, insights, sentences, and paragraphs. I had a screaming fight with this boy in his early twenties who told me what I could and couldn't say as a writer. I refused to change it; he refused to publish it. Women law students at Harvard took pity on me, and this essay was published in the H arv ard W o m e n s Law Jo u rn a l late spring 1985. They were pretty intrusive too. I made changes I regret. Why did I have to run this gauntlet to get this essay into print? Misogyny, stupidity, and the arrogance of children aside, this editing business has gotten out of hand; it has become police work for liberals.

To

s a y w h a t o n e t h o u g h t — th a t w a s m y little p r o b le m — a g a in s t th e

p r o d ig io u s C u r r e n t ; to fin d a s e n te n c e th a t c o u ld h o ld its o w n a g a in s t th e m a le flo o d .

V ir g in ia W o o lf I w a n t to s a y r ig h t h e r e , th a t th o s e w e ll- m e a n in g fr ie n d s o n th e o u ts id e w h o s a y th a t w e h a v e s u f fe r e d th e s e h o r r o r s o f p ris o n , o f h u n g e r s trik e s

and forcible feeding, because we desired to martyrise ourselves for the cause, are absolutely and entirely mistaken. We never went to prison in order to be martyrs. We went there in order that we might obtain the rights of citizenship. We were willing to break laws that we might force men to give us the right to make laws.

Emmeline Pankhurst

1.

C

e n s o r s h ip

is

a

Censorship

re a l th in g , n o t a n a b s t r a c t idea o r a w o r d t h a t

ca n b e u s e d t o m e a n a n y t h in g a t all.

In ancient Rom e, a censor w as a m agistrate w h o took the census (a

count o f the male population and an evaluation of property for the purpose o f taxation done ev ery fifth year), assessed taxes, and inspected m orals and conduct. His po w er o ver conduct cam e from his p o w er to tax. For instance, in 403 B C , the censors Cam illus and Postim ius heavily fined elderly bachelors fo r not m arrying. T h e p o w e r to tax, then as now , w as the p o w er to destroy. T h e censor, using the police and judicial pow ers o f the state, regulated social behavior.

A t its origins, then, censorship had nothing to do w ith striking d o w n ideas as such; it had to do w ith acts. In m y view , real state censorship still does. In Sou th Africa and the Soviet Union, for instance, w riting is treated entirely as an act, and w riters are view ed as persons w h o engage in an act (writing) that by its very nature is dangerous to the continued existence o f the state. T h e police in these countries do not try to suppress ideas. T h e y are m ore specific, m ore concrete, m ore realistic. T h e y go after books and m anuscripts (writing) and d estroy them . T h e y g o a fter w riters as persons w h o have done som ething that they will do again and they persecute, punish, or kill them . T h e y do not w o rry about w h at people th in k— not, at least, as w e use the w ord think: a m ental event, entirely internal, abstract. T h e y w o rry about w h a t people do: and w ritin g, speaking, even as evidence that thinking is going on, are seen as th in gs people do. T h ere is a quality o f im m ediacy and reality in w h at w ritin g is taken to be. W here police p o w er is used against w riters system atically, w riters are seen as people w h o by w ritin g do som eth in g

socially

real

and

significant,

not contem plative or

dithering. T h erefo re, w ritin g is n ever peripheral or beside the point.

It is serious and easily seditious. I am o fferin g no brief fo r police states w h e n I say that virtually all g reat w riters, crossculturally and transhistorically, share this view of w h a t w ritin g is. In co u n tries like ours, controlled by a bourgeoisie to w h o m the police are accountable, w ritin g is easier to do and valued less. It has less im pact. It is m ore abundant and cheaper. Less is at stake fo r reader and w rite r both. T h e w rite r m ay hold w ritin g to be a life-or-death m atter, bu t the police and society do not. W riting is seen to be a personal choice, not a social, political, o r esthetic necessity fra u g h t w ith d an ger and m eaning. T h e general v ie w in th ese pleasant places* is that w rite rs think up ideas or w o rd s and then o th er people read them and all this happens in the head, a vast cavern so m ew h ere n orth o f the eyes. It is all air, except for the paper and ink, w hich are sim ply banal. N o th in g happens.

Police in police states and m ost g rea t w rite rs th ro u g h o u t time see w ritin g as act, not air— as act, not idea; concrete, specific, real, not insubstantial blather on a dead page. C en so rsh ip goes a fter the act and the actor: the book and the w riter. It needs to d estroy both. T h e cost in hu m an lives is staggerin g, and it is perhaps essential to say that hu m an lives d estroyed m u st co u n t m ore in the w e ig h in g o f h o rro r than books burned. T h is is m y personal view , and I love books m ore than I love people.

C en so rsh ip is deeply m isunderstood in the U nited States, because the fairly spoiled, privileged, frivolou s people w h o are the literate citizens o f this co u n try think th at cen sorship is som e fo g g y e ffo rt to suppress ideas. For them , cen sorship is not so m eth in g in itself— an act o f police p o w er w ith discernible consequ ences to h u n ted people; instead,

it

is

about

som ethin g

abstract— the

su ppressing

or

controllin g of ideas. C en so rsh ip , like w ritin g itself, is no lon ger an act.

Because it is no lon ger the blatant exercise o f police p o w e r against w rite rs and books because o f w h a t th ey do, w h a t th ey accom plish in the real w orld, it becom es va g u e, hard to find, excep t perhaps as an attitud e. It g ets used to m ean unpleasant, even a n g ry fro w n s of

"Well, you kn ow , it am azes m e . . . . " says dissident South African w riter Nadine G ordim er in an interview . "I com e to Am erica, I go to England, I go to F ra n ce . nobody's at risk. T hey're afraid of getting cancer, losing a lover, losing their jobs, being insecure.. Its only in m y ow n cou ntry that I find people w h o voluntarily choose to put everyth in g at risk— in their personal life. " Nadine G ordim er, Writers at Work, Sixth Series, edited by G eo rge Plimpton (N ew York: Viking Penguin Inc., 1984), p 261

disapproval o r critiques delivered in harsh tones; it m eans social disapproval or small retaliations by outraged citizens w h ere the book is still available and the w riter is entirely unharm ed, even if insulted. It hangs in the air, om inous, like the threat o f drizzle. It gets to be, in silly countries like this one, w h a tever people say it is, separate from any material definition, separate from police pow er, separate from state repression (jail, banning, exile, death), separate from devastating consequences

to real people (jail, banning, exile, death). It is

som ething that people w h o eat fine food and w ear fine clothes w o rry about frenetically, trying to find it, anticipating it w ith great anxiety, arguin g it d ow n as if— if it w ere real— an argu m ent w ould m ake it go aw ay;

not

know in g

that

it has a d ear,

simple, unavoidable

m om entum and m eaning in a cruel w orld o f police pow er that their privilege cannot com prehend.

2.

Obscenity

In the nineteenth and tw en tieth centuries, in m ost o f W estern Europe, England, and the United States, m ore often than not (time­ ou t for Franco, for instance), w ritin g has been m ost consistently view ed as an act w arranting prosecution w h en the w ritin g is construed to be obscene.

T h e republics, dem ocracies, and constitutional m onarchies of the W est, n o w and then, do not sm other w riters in police violence; they prefer to pick o ff w riters w h o ann oy and irritate selectively w ith fairly token prosecutions. T h e list of w riters so harassed is elegant, w hite, male (therefore the pronoun "h e " is used th ro u gh o u t this discussion), and rem arkably small. Being am ong them is m ore than a cerem onial honor. A s Flaubert w ro te his brother in 1857: "M y persecution has brou gh t me widespread sym pathy. If m y book is bad, that will serve to m ake it seem better. If, on the o th er hand, it has lasting qualities, that will build a foundation fo r it. T h ere y o u are! I am h ourly aw aiting the official docum ent w hich will nam e the day w h en la m to take m y seat (for the crim e of having w ritten in French) in the dock in the com pany of thieves and hom osexu als. " 1 A fe w m on ths later that sam e year, Baudelaire w as fined 300 francs fo r publishing six obscene poem s. T h e y also had to be rem oved from fu tu re editions o f his book.

In harder, earlier days, Jean-Jacques Rousseau spent eight years as a

fu gitive a fter his Emile w as banned and a w a rra n t w a s issued fo r his arrest. English cen sors crim inally prosecuted S w in bu rn e's Poems and Ballads in 1866. T h e y w e re particularly piqued at Zola, even in translation, so his English publisher, se ven ty years old, w e n t to jail for th ree m onths. In 1898, a bookseller w as arrested fo r selling H avelock Ellis' w o rk and received a suspended sentence. T h is list is rep resen t­ ative, not exh au stive. W hile prosecution s o f w rite rs u nder obscenity law s h ave created grea t difficulties fo r w rite rs already plagued w ith them (as m ost w riters are), crim inal prosecution s u nd er o bscenity la w in Europe and the United States are notable for h o w n a rro w ly th ey reach w riters, h o w san gu ine w rite rs tend to be about the consequences to th em selves, and h o w little is paid in the w riter's life­ blood to w h a t D. H. L aw ren ce (w h o paid m ore than m ost m odern W estern w riters) called "the cen so r-m o ro n . " 2 In S o u th A frica, one w ou ld h ardly be so flip. In o u r w orld , th e w rite r g ets harassed, as L aw ren ce did; th e w rite r m ay be poor o r n o t— the injury is considerably w o rse if he is; but the w rite r is not terrorized or tortured , and w rite rs do n o t live under a reign o f terro r as w riters, because o f w h a t th ey do. T h e potsh ot application o f crim inal law fo r w ritin g is not good, nice, o r right; b u t it is im portant to recogn ize the relatively n a rro w scope and m arginal ch aracter o f criminal p rosecu ­ tion u nder obscenity law in particular— especially com pared w ith the scope and ch aracter o f police-state censorship. R esisting obscenity law does not require hyperbolic renderings o f w h a t it is and h o w it has been used. It can be fo u g h t o r repudiated on its o w n term s.

T h e use o f o bscenity law s against w riters, h o w e v e r haphazard or insistent, is cen sorship and it does hold w ritin g to be an act. T h is is a unique perception o f w h a t w ritin g is, taking place, as it does, in a liberal co n tex t in w h ich w ritin g is held to be ideas. It is the obscene qu ality o f the w ritin g, the o bscenity itself, that is seen to tu rn w ritin g fro m idea into act. W riting o f a n y kind or qu ality is idea, except fo r obscene w ritin g, w h ich is act. W riting is cen sored, ev en in o u r o w n h ap p y little land o f O z , as act, not idea.

W h at is obscenity, such that it tu rn s w ritin g, w h e n obscene, into so m eth in g th at actually h appen s— ch an ges it from internal w ind so m e w h ere in the elevated mind into a gen u in ely o ffen siv e and u tterly real fart, noticed, rude, occasioning pinched fin gers on the nose?

T h ere is the legal an sw er and the artistic answ er. A rtists have been consistently pushing on the boundaries o f obscenity because great w riters see w ritin g as an act, and in liberal culture only obscene w ritin g has that social standing, that quality o f dynam ism and heroism . G reat w riters tend to experience w ritin g as an intense and disruptive act; in the W est, it is only recognized as such w h en the w ritin g itself is experienced as obscene. In liberal culture, the w riter has needed obscenity to be perceived as socially real.

W hat is it that obscenity does? T h e w riter uses w h a t the society deem s to be obscene because the society then reacts to the w riting the w a y the w riter values the writing: as if it does som ething. But obscenity itself is socially constructed; the w riter does not invent it or in any sense originate it. He finds it, kn ow in g that it is w h at society hides. He looks under rocks and in dark corners.

T h ere are tw o possible derivations o f the w ord obscenity: the discredited one, what is concealed; and the accepted one, filth. Anim als b u ry their filth, hide it, cover it, leave it behind, separate it from them selves: so do w e, going w a y w a y back. Filth is excrem ent: from d ow n there. W e bury it or hide it; also, w e hide w h e re it com es from .

U nder male rule, m enstrual blood is also filth, so w om en are twice dirty. Filth is w h ere the sexual organs are and because w om en are seen prim arily as sex, existing to provide sex, w o m en have to be covered: o ur naked bodies being obscene.

O bscen ity law uses both possible root m eanings of obscene intertw ined: it typically condem ns nudity, public display, lewd exhibition, exposed genitals or buttocks or pubic areas, sodom y, m asturbation, sexual intercourse, excretion. O bscenity law is applied to pictures and words: the artifact itself exposes w h at should be hidden; it show s dirt. T h e hum an body, all sex acts and excretory acts, are the dom ain o f obscenity law.

But being in the dom ain o f obscenity law is not enough. O n e m ust feel alive there. T o be obscene, the representations m ust arouse prurient interest. Prurient m eans itching or itch; it is related to the Sanskrit fo r he burns. It m eans sexual arousal. Judges, law m akers, and juries have been, until very recently, entirely male: em pirically, prurient m eans causes erection. T heologian s have called this sam e quality o f obscenity "venereal pleasure, " holding that "if a w o rk is to be called obscene it m ust, o f its nature, be such as actually to arouse or

calculated to aro u se in the v ie w e r o r reader such venereal pleasure. If the w o rk is not o f such a kind, it m ay, indeed, be vulgar, d isgusting, crude, unpleasant, w h a t y o u w ill— but it will not be, in the strict sense w h ich

Canon

L aw

obliges

us to apply, obscen e. " 3 A

secular

philosopher o f po rn ograp h y isolated the sam e qu ality w h en he w rote: "O b sce n ity is o u r nam e fo r the uneasiness w h ich upsets the physical state associated w ith se lf-p o ssessio n ..."4 T h ro u g h o u t h isto ry, the m ale has been the standard fo r obscenity law : erection is his venereal pleasure or the u neasiness w h ich upsets the physical state associated w ith his self-possession. It is not surprising, then, that in th e sam e period w h en w o m en becam e jurors, law yers, and ju d ges— bu t especially jurors, w o m en h avin g been su m ­ m arily excluded fro m m ost juries until perhaps a decade ago — obscen ity law fell into disuse and disregard. In ord er fo r obscenity law to h a ve retained social and legal co h erence, it w ou ld h ave had to recogn ize as part o f its standard w o m en 's sexual arousal, a m ore subjective standard than erection. It w ou ld also h a ve had to use the standard o f penile erection in a social en viro n m en t that w a s no lon ger sex-segregated , an en viro n m en t in w h ich m ale sexual arousal w ould be subjected to fem ale scru tiny. In m y view , the presence o f w o m en in the public sphere o f legal decision-m aking has done m ore to underm in e th e efficacy o f obscen ity law than a n y self-conscious m ovem en t against it.

T h e act th at obscenity recogn izes is erection, and w h a te v e r produces erection is seen to be o bscen e— act, not idea— because of w h a t it m akes happen. T h e m ale sexual response is seen to be in vo lu n ta ry, so th ere is no experientially explicable division b etw e en the m aterial th at causes erection and the erection itself. T h a t is the logic o f obscen ity law used against im portan t w rite rs w h o have pushed against the borders o f the socially-defined obscene, because th e y w a n ted w ritin g to h ave that v e ry quality o f being a socially recogn ized act. T h e y w an ted the inevitability o f the response— the social response. T h e erection m akes the w ritin g socially real from the society's point o f view , not fro m the w riter's. W h at th e w rite r needs is to be taken seriou sly, by an y m eans necessary. In liberal societies, only o bscen ity law com prehen d s w ritin g as an act. It d efines the natu re and quality o f the act n a r ro w ly — not w ritin g itself, b u t producing erection s. Flaubert apparen tly did produce them ; so did Baudelaire,

Zola, Rousseau, Law rence, Joyce, and N abokov. It's that simple.

W hat is at stake in obscenity law is alw ays erection: under w hat conditions, in w h at circum stances, how , by w hom , by w h at materials men w an t it produced in them selves. M en have made this public policy. W hy th ey w ant to regulate their o w n erections through law is a

question

of

endless

interest

and

im portance

to

feminists.

N evertheless, that they do persist in this regulation is simple fact.

T h ere are civil and social conflicts over h o w best to regulate erection th rou gh

law,

especially

w h en

caused

by

w ords

or

pictures.

A rgu m en ts am ong m en notw ithstanding, high culture is phallocentric. It is also, using the civilized criteria of jurisprudence, not infrequen tly obscene.

M ost im portant w riters have insisted that their o w n uses of the obscene as socially defined are not pornography. A s D. H. Law rence w rote: "But even I w ould censor genuine pornography, rigorously. It w ould not be d ifficu lt.. .. [Y]ou can recognize it by the insult it o ffers, invariably, to sex, and to the hum an spirit." 5 It w as also, he pointed out, produced by the underw orld. N abokov saw in pornography "m ediocrity, com m ercialism , and certain strict rules o f narration.. ..

[A]ction has to be limited to the copulation o f cliches. Style, structure, im agery should never distract the reader from his tepid lust. " 6 T h ey k n ew that w h at they did w as different from pornography, but they did not entirely k n o w w h at the difference w as. T h e y missed the heart o f an empirical distinction because w ritin g w as indeed real to them but w om en w ere not.

The

insult

that

pornography

offers,

invariably,

to

sex

is

accomplished in the active subordination of w om en: the creation of a sexual

dynam ic

in

w hich

the

pu ttin g-dow n

of

w om en,

the

suppression o f w om en, and ultim ately the brutalization of w om en, is w h at sex is taken to be. O bscenity in law, and in w h at it does socially, is erection. Law recognizes the act in this. P ornography, h o w ever, is a broader, m ore com prehensive act, because it crushes a w hole class of people th ro u gh violence and subjugation: and sex is the vehicle that does the crushing. T h e penis is not the test, as it is in obscenity.

Instead, the status o f w om en is the issue. Erection is implicated in the subordinating, but w h o it reaches and h o w are the pressing legal and social questions.

P ornography,

unlike

obscenity,

is a discrete,

identifiable system of sexual exploitation that h u rts w om en as a class

b y creating inequality and abuse. T h is is a n ew legal idea, but it is the recognition and nam ing o f an old and cruel injury to a dispossessed and coerced underclass. It is the sound o f w o m en 's w o rd s breaking the lon gest silence.

3.

Pornography

In th e U nited States, it is an $8-billion trade in sexual exploitation.

It is w o m en turned into su bhu m ans, beaver, pussy, body parts, genitals

exposed,

buttocks, breasts, m ou th s open and th roats

pen etrated, covered in sem en, pissed on, shitted on, h u n g from light fixtu res, tortured , m aim ed, bleeding, d isem bow eled, killed.

It is som e creatu re called fem ale, used.

It is scissors poised at the vagina and objects stuck in it, a smile on the w o m an 's face, h er to n gu e h an gin g out.

It is a w o m a n bein g fucked by dogs, horses, snakes.

It is e v e ry to rtu re in e v e ry prison cell in the w o rld , done to w o m en and sold as sexual en tertain m en t.

It is rape and g an g rape and anal rape and th ro at rape: and it is the w o m an raped, asking fo r m ore.

It is the w o m an in the picture to w h o m it is really happening and the w o m en against w h o m th e picture is used, to m ake them do w h a t the w o m an in the picture is doing.

It is the p o w er m en h ave o v e r w o m e n turn ed into sexual acts m en do to w o m en , becau se po rn ograp h y is the p o w er and the act.

It is the conditioning o f erection and orgasm in m en to the p o w erlessn ess o f w o m en : o u r in ferio rity, hum iliation, pain, torm ent; to us as objects, things, or com m odities fo r use in sex as servan ts.

It sexu alizes inequality and in doing so creates discrim ination as a sex-based practice.

It perm eates the political condition o f w o m en in society by being the

su bstan ce

of our

inequality

h o w e v e r located— in jobs, in

education, in m arriage, in life.

It is w o m en , kept a sexual underclass, kept available for rape and b a ttery and incest and prostitu tion.

It is w h a t w e are u n d er m ale dom ination; it is w h a t w e are for under m ale dom ination.

It is the heretofore hidden (from us) system of subordination that w o m en have been told is just life.

U nder male suprem acy, it is the syn on ym fo r w h at being a w om an is.

It is access to our bodies as a birthright to men: the grant, the gift, the perm ission, the license, the proof, the prom ise, the m ethod, h o w ­ to; it is us accessible, no m atter w h at the law pretends to say, no m atter w h at w e pretend to say.

It is physical injury and physical hum iliation and physical pain: to the w om en against w h om it is used after it is made; to the w om en used to m ake it.

A s w ords alone, o r w ords and pictures, m oving or still, it creates system atic harm to w o m en in the form of discrimination and physical hurt. It creates harm inevitably by its nature because of w h at it is and w h a t it does. T h e harm will occur as long as it is made and used. T h e nam e of the next victim is u n kn ow n , but everyth in g else is know n.

Because of it— because it is the subordination of w om en perfectly achieved— the abuse done to us by any hum an standard is perceived as using us fo r w h at w e are by nature: w om en are w hores; w om en w a n t to be raped; she provoked it; w om en like to be hurt; she says no but m eans yes because she w an ts to be taken against her will w hich is n ot really h er will because w h a t she w an ts underneath is to have an yth in g done to her that violates or hum iliates or h urts her; she w a n ts it, because she is a w om an , no m atter w h at it is, because she is a w om an; that is h o w w om en are, w h at w om en are, w h at w om en are for. T h is view is institutionally expressed in law. So m uch for equal protection.

If it w e re being done to hum an beings, it w ould be reckoned an atrocity. It is being done to w om en. It is reckoned fun, pleasure, en tertainm ent, sex, som ebody's (not so m eth in gs) civil liberty no less.

W hat do you w a n t to be w h en you g ro w up? Doggie G irl? Gestapo Sex Slave? Black Bitch in Bondage? Pet, bunny, beaver? In dream s begin responsibilities, 7 w h eth er one is the dream er or the dream ed.

4.

Pornographers

M ost o f them are sm all-tim e pimps or big-tim e pimps. T h e y sell w om en : the real flesh-and-blood w o m en in the pictures. T h e y like the

excitem ent o f dom ination; th ey are g reed y for profit; they are sadistic in

their

exploitation

p o rn ograph y

th ey

of w om en;

m ake

is

th ey

hate

the distillation

w om en , and

the

o f that hate. T h e

p h otographs are w h a t they have created live, fo r them selves, for their o w n en joym en t. T h e exch an ges of w o m en am ong them are part o f th e fun, too: so that the fictional creatu re "Linda Lovelace, " w h o w as the real w o m an Linda M archiano, w as forced to "d eep -th roat" e v e ry porn ograph er h er o w n er-p o rn o g rap h er w anted to im press. O f course, it w as the w o m an , not the fiction, w h o had to be hypnotized so that the m en could pen etrate to the bottom o f h er throat, and w h o had to be beaten and terrorized to g et h e r com pliance at all. T h e finding o f n e w and terrible thin gs to do to w o m en is part o f the challenge o f the vocation: so the in ven to r o f "Linda Lovelace" and "d eep-th roatin g" is a geniu s in the field, a pioneer. O r, as AI G oldstein, a colleague, referred to him in an in terview w ith him in Screw several years ago: a p im p s pimp.

Even w ith w ritten p orn ograph y, there has n ever been the distinction b etw een m aking p o rn ograp h y and the sexual abuse of live w o m en that is taken as a truism by those w h o approach p o rn ograp h y as if it w e re an intellectual phen om en on . T h e M arquis de Sade, as the w orld's fo rem o st literary porn ographer, is archetypal. His sexual practice w a s the persistent sexual abuse o f w o m en and girls, w ith occasional excu rsions into the abuse o f boys. A s an aristocrat in a feudal society, he preyed w ith near im pun ity on p rostitu tes and servan ts. T h e p o rn ograp h y he w r o te w a s an u rg en t part o f the sexual abu se he practiced: not o nly because he did w h a t he w ro te, but also because the intense h atred o f w o m en that fuelled the one also fuelled the other: not tw o separate en gines, but one en gine run n in g on the sam e tank. T h e acts o f p o rn o g rap h y and th e acts o f rape w e re w a ve s on th e sam e sea: that sea becom ing fo r its victim s, h o w e v e r it reached th em , a tidal w a v e o f destruction. P orn o graph ers w h o use w o rd s k n o w that w h a t th ey are doing is both agg ressive and d estructive: som etim es th ey philosophize about h o w sex inevitably ends in death, the death o f a w o m an being a thing o f sexual beau ty as w ell as excitem en t. P orn o grap h y, even w h en w ritten , is sex because of the dyn am ism o f the sexual hatred in it; and for porn ograp h ers, the sexual abu se o f w o m en as co m m o n ly u nd erstood and p o rn ograp h y are both acts o f sexual predation, w h ich is h o w th ey live.

O n e reason that stopping pornographers and pornography is not censorship is that pornographers are m ore like the police in police states than th ey are like the w riters in police states. T h ey are the instrum ents of terror, not its victims. W hat police do to the pow erless in police states is w hat pornographers do to w om en, except that it is entertain m ent fo r the m asses, not dignified as political. W riters do not do w h at pornographers do. Secret police do. T o rtu rers do. W hat pornographers do to w om en is m ore like w h at police do to political prisoners than it is like anyth in g else: except fo r the fact that it is w atched w ith so m uch pleasure by so m any. Intervening in a system o f terror w h ere it is vulnerable to public scrutiny to stop it is not censorship; it is the system o f terror that stops speech and creates abuse and despair. T h e pornographers are the secret police of male suprem acy: keeping w om en subordinate th rou gh intimidation and assault.

5.

Subordination

In the am endm ent to the H um an R ights O rdinance of the C ity of M inneapolis w ritten by C atharin e A . M acK in non and m yself, por足 nography is defined as the graphic, sexually explicit subordination of w o m en w h eth er in pictures or in w ords that also includes one or m ore o f the following: w o m en are presented dehum anized as sexual objects, things, or com m odities; or w om en are presented as sexual objects w h o enjoy pain or hum iliation; or w o m en are presented as sexual objects w h o experience sexual pleasure in being raped; or w o m en are presented as sexual objects tied up or cut up or m utilated or bruised or physically hurt; or w om en are presented in postures of sexual subm ission; or w o m e n s body parts are exhibited, such that w o m en are reduced to those parts; or w o m en are presented being penetrated by objects or animals; or w o m en are presented in scenarios o f degradation, injury, abasem ent, torture, sh o w n as filthy o r inferior, bleeding, bruised, or h u rt in a con text that m akes these conditions sexual.

T h is statu to ry definition is an objectively accurate definition of w h a t porn ography is, based on an analysis o f the material produced by the $8-billion-a-year industry, and also on exten sive study of the

w h o le range o f p o rn ograph y extan t from o th er eras and o th er cultures. G iven the fact that w o m en 's oppression has an ahistorical ch aracter— a sam eness across tim e and cu ltu res expressed in rape, battery, incest, and p rostitu tio n — it is no surprise that porn ograph y, a central phen om en on in that oppression, has precisely that quality o f sam eness. It does not significantly ch ange in w h a t it is, w h a t it does, w h a t is in it, o r h o w it w o rks, w h e th e r it is, fo r instance, classical or feudal o r m odern, W estern or Asian; w h e th e r the m ethod o f m an u factu re is w ords, photographs, or video. W hat has changed is th e public availability o f po rn ograp h y and the nu m bers o f live w o m en used in it because o f n e w technologies: not its nature. M an y people n o te w h a t seem s to them a qualitative change in p o rn o g rap h y— that it has g o tten m ore violent, ev en g ro tesq u ely violent, o ver the last tw o decades. T h e ch an ge is o n ly in w h a t is publicly visible: not in the range or preponderance o f violent po rn ograp h y (e.g., the place o f rape in p o rn ograp h y stays constan t and central, no m atter w h ere, w h en , or h o w the p o rn o g rap h y is produced); not in the character, quality, or co n ten t o f w h a t the porn ograph ers actually produce; not in the harm caused; not in the valuation o f w o m en in it, or the m etaphysical definition o f w h a t w o m en are; not in the sexual abuse prom oted, including rape, battery, and incest; not in the cen trality o f its role in subordin ating w o m en . U ntil recen tly, po rn ograp h y operated in private, w h e re m ost abuse o f w o m en takes place.

T h e oppression o f w o m en occurs th ro u g h sexual subordination. It is the use o f sex as the m edium o f oppression that m akes the subordination o f w o m en so distinct fro m racism or prejudice against a g ro u p based on religion o r national origin. Social inequality is created in m an y d ifferen t w ays. In m y view , the radical responsibility is to isolate the m aterial m eans o f creatin g the inequality so that m aterial rem edies can be fou nd fo r it.

T h is is particularly difficult w ith respect to w o m en 's inequality because that inequality is achieved th ro u g h sex. Sex as desired by the class th at dom inates w o m en is held by th at class to be elem ental, u rg en t, necessary, ev en if o r ev en th o u g h it appears to require the repudiation o f a n y claim w o m en m ight h ave to full h u m an standing.

In the su bordin ation o f w o m en , inequality itself is sexualized: m ade into th e experience o f sexual pleasure, essential to sexual desire.

P ornography is the m aterial m eans of sexualizing inequality; and that is w h y pornography is a central practice in the subordination of w om en.

Subordination itself is a broad, deep, system atic dynam ic discern足 ible in any persecution based on race o r sex. Social subordination has fo u r main parts. First, there is hierarchy, a gro u p on top and a grou p on the bottom . For w om en, this hierarchy is experienced both socially and sexually, publicly and privately. W om en are physically integrated into the society in w hich w e are held to be inferior, and our low status is both put in place and m aintained by the sexual usage of us by men; and so w om en's experience o f hierarchy is incredibly intim ate and w ounding.

Second, subordination is objectification. Objectification occurs w h en a hum an being, throu gh social m eans, is made less than hum an, turned

into a thing

or com m odity, bou ght and sold. W hen

objectification occurs, a person is de-personalized, so that no individuality or integrity is available socially or in w h a t is an extrem ely circum scribed privacy (because those w h o dom inate determ ine its boundaries). O bjectification is an injury right at the h eart o f discrimination: those w h o can be used as if th ey are not fully hum an are no longer fu lly hum an in social terms; their h um an ity is h u rt by being diminished.

Third, subordination is submission. A person is at the bottom o f a hierarchy because of a condition of birth; a person on the bottom is dehum anized, an object or com m odity; inevitably, the situation of that person requires obedience and compliance. T h a t diminished person is expected to be subm issive; there is no longer any right to self-determ ination, because there is no basis in equality fo r a ny such right to exist. In a condition o f inferiority and objectification, subm ission is usually essential for survival. O ppressed groups are k n o w n fo r their abilities to anticipate the orders and desires o f those w h o have p o w er o ver them , to com ply w ith an obsequiousness that is th en used by the dom inant gro u p to justify its o w n dom inance: the m aster, not able to im agine a hum an like him self in such degrading servility, thinks the servility is proof that the h ierarchy is natural and that objectification sim ply am ou nts to seeing these lesser creatures for w h a t th ey are. T h e subm ission forced on inferior, objectified

gro u p s precisely by hierarchy and objectification is taken to be the p roo f o f inherent inferiority and subhum an capacities.

Fourth, subordination is violence. T h e violence

is system atic,

endem ic en ou gh to be unrem arkable and norm ative, usually taken as an implicit right o f the one com m ittin g the violence. In m y view , h ierarchy, objectification, and subm ission are the preconditions for system atic social violence against any g ro u p targeted because of a condition o f birth. If violence against a gro u p is both socially pervasive and socially norm al, then h ierarchy, objectification, and subm ission are already solidly in place.

T h e role o f violence in subordinating w o m en has one special characteristic

co n g ru en t

w ith

sex

as

the

instru m entality

of

subordination: the violence is supposed to be sex fo r the w o m an too— w h a t w o m en w a n t and like as part o f o u r sexual nature; it is supposed to g ive w o m en pleasure (as in rape); it is supposed to m ean love to a w o m an from h er point o f v ie w (as in battery). T h e violence against w o m en is seen to be done not just in accord w ith som eth in g com pliant in w o m en , but in response to som eth in g active in and basic to w o m en 's nature.

P orn o grap h y uses each com pon ent o f social subordination. Its particular m edium is sex. H ierarchy, objectification, subm ission, and violence all becom e alive w ith sexual e n erg y and sexual m eaning. A hierarchy, fo r instance, can h ave a static quality; bu t porn ograph y, by sexualizing it, m akes it dynam ic, alm ost carnivorou s, so that m en keep im posing it fo r the sake o f their o w n sexual pleasure— fo r the sexual pleasure it gives them to im pose it. In porn ograph y, each elem en t o f subordination is co n veyed th ro u gh the sexu ally explicit u sage o f w o m en : p o rn ograp h y in fact is w h a t w o m en are and w h a t w o m en are fo r and h o w w o m en are used in a society prem ised on the in ferio rity o f w o m en . It is a m etaphysics o f w o m en 's subjugation: o ur existen ce delineated in a definition o f o u r nature; o u r statu s in society predeterm inech b y the uses to w h ich w e are put. T h e w o m an 's body is w h a t is m aterially subordinated. Sex is the m aterial m eans th ro u gh w h ich

the

subordination

is accom plished.

P orn o grap h y is the

institu tion o f m ale dom inance that sexu alizes hierarch y, objectifica­ tion,

subm ission,

and

violence.

As

such, po rn ograp h y creates

inequality, not as artifact bu t as a system of social reality; it creates the

necessity (or and the actual behaviors that constitute sex inequality.

6.

Speech

Subordination can be so deep that those w h o are hurt by it are u tterly silent. Subordination can create a silence quieter than death. T h e w o m en flattened out on the page are deathly still, except for hurt me.

Hurt me is not w o m e n s speech. It is the speech imposed on w om en by pim ps to cover the aw ful, condem ning silence. T h e T h ree M arias of Portugal w e n t to jail for w riting this: "Let no one tell me that silence gives consent, because w h o ev er is silent dissents. " 8 T h e w om en say the pimp's words: the language is another elem ent o f the rape; the language is part o f the humiliation; the language is part of the forced sex. Real silence m ight signify dissent, for those reared to understand its sad discourse. T h e pimps cannot tolerate literal silence— it is too eloquent as testim on y— so th ey force the w ords out of the w om an's m outh. T h e w om en say pimp's words: w hich is w orse than silence.

T h e silence o f the w om en not in the picture, outside the pages, hurt but silent, used but silent, is staggering in h o w deep and wide it goes.

It is a silence o ver centuries: an exile into speechlessness. O n e is shut up by the inferiority and the abuse. O n e is shut up by the threat and the injury. In her m em oir o f the Stalin period, Hope Against Hope, N adezhda M andelstam w ro te that scream ing "is a m an's w a y of leaving a trace, o f telling people h o w he lived and died. By his scream s he asserts his right to live, sends a m essage to the outside world dem anding help and calling fo r resistance. If nothing else is left, one m ust scream . Silence is the real crim e against h u m an ity. " 9 Scream ing is a m an's w a y o f leaving a trace. T h e scream of a m an is never m isunderstood as a scream o f pleasure by passers-by or politicians or historians, nor by the torm entor. A man's scream is a call for resistance. A m an's scream asserts his right to live, sends a m essage; he leaves a trace. A w om an's scream is the sound of h er fem ale will and her fem ale pleasure in doing w h a t the pornographers say she is for. H er scream is a sound of celebration to those w h o overhear.

W om en's w a y o f leaving a trace is the silence, centuries' w orth: the en tirely inhum an silence that su rely one day will be noticed, som eone will say that som ething is w ro n g , som e sound is m issing, som e voice is lost; the en tirely inhum an silence that will be a clue to hum an hope

denied, a shard o f evidence that a crim e has occurred, the crim e that created the silence; the entirely inhum an silence that is a cold, cold condem nation o f w h a t those w h o speak have done to those w h o do not.

But th ere is m ore than the hurt me forced o ut o f us, and the silence in w h ich it lies. T h e porn ograph ers actually use o u r bodies as their language. W e are their speech. O u r bodies are the building blocks of their sentences. W hat th ey do to us, called speech, is not unlike w h a t K afka's H arro w m achine— "T h e needles are set in like the teeth o f a h a rro w and the w h o le thing w o rk s som ethin g like a h arro w , a lth ough its action is limited to one place and contrived w ith m uch m ore artistic skill"10— did to the condem ned in "In the Penal C olon y": " O u r s e n te n c e d o e s n o t s o u n d s e v e r e . W h a te v e r c o m m a n d m e n t th e p ris o n e r h a s d is o b e y e d is w r it t e n u p o n h is b o d y b y th e H a r r o w . T h is p ris o n e r, f o r in s ta n c e " — th e o ffic e r in d ica ted th e m a n — "w ill h a v e w r itte n o n h is b o d y : H O N O R T H Y S U P E R I O R S ! " 11 " . . . T h e H a r r o w is b e g in n in g to w r ite ; w h e n it fin is h e s th e fir s t d r a ft o f th e in sc rip tio n o n th e m a n 's b a c k , th e la y e r o f c o tto n w o o l b e g in s to ro ll and s lo w ly tu r n s th e b o d y o v e r , t o g iv e th e H a r r o w fr e s h sp a c e f o r w r i t i n g . . . .

S o it k e e p s o n w r itin g d e e p e r a n d d e e p e r .. " 12

A sked if the prisoner k n o w s his sentence, the officer replies: " T h e r e w ou ld be no point in telling him. H e ll learn it on his b o d y / " 13 T h is is the so-called speech o f the porn ographers, protected n o w by law .

P rotecting w h a t th ey "say" m eans protecting w h a t th ey do to us, h o w th ey do it. It m eans protecting their sadism on o u r bodies, because that is h o w th ey w rite: not like a w rite r at all; like a torturer.

P rotecting w h a t th ey "say" m eans protecting sexual exploitation, because th ey can n ot "sa y" an yth in g w ith o u t dim inishing, h u rtin g, or d estro y in g us. T h eir rights o f speech express their rights o ver us.

T h eir rights o f speech require o u r inferiority: and that w e be p ow erless in relation to them . T h eir rights o f speech m ean that hurt me is accepted as the real speech o f w o m en , not speech forced on us as part o f the sex forced on us bu t origin atin g w ith us because w e are w h a t th e porn ograp h ers "say" w e are.

If w h a t w e w a n t to say is not hurt me, w e h ave th e real social p o w er o n ly to use silence as eloq uen t dissent. Silence is w h a t w o m e n h ave

instead of speech. Silence is o ur dissent during rape unless the rapist, like the pornographer, prefers hurt me, in which case w e have no dissent. Silence is our m oving, persuasive dissent during battery unless the batterer, like the pornographer, prefers hurt me. Silence is a fine dissent during incest and fo r all the long years after.

Silence is not speech. W e have silence, not speech. W e fight rape, battery, incest, and prostitution w ith it. We lose. But som eday som eone will notice: that people called w om en w ere buried in a long silence that m eant dissent and that the pornographers— w ith needles set in like the teeth o f a h a rro w — chattered on.

7.

Equality

To get that word, male, out of the Constitution, cost the women of this country fifty-two years of pauseless campaign; 56 state referendum campaigns; 480 legislative campaigns to get state suffrage amendments submitted; 47 state constitutional convention campaigns; 277 state party convention campaigns to get suffrage planks in the party platforms; 19 campaigns with 19 successive Congresses to get the federal amendment submitted, and the final ratification campaign.

M illio n s o f d o lla rs w e r e ra ised , m o s tly in sm all su m s , and sp e n t w ith e co n o m ic care. H u n d re d s o f w o m e n g a v e th e a c c u m u la te d possib ilities o f a n e n tir e life tim e , th o u sa n d s g a v e y e a r s o f th e ir liv es, h u n d re d s o f th o u s a n d s g a v e c o n s ta n t in te re s t and su c h aid as th e y cou ld. It w a s a c o n tin u o u s a n d s e e m in g ly e n d le ss ch a in o f a c tiv ity . Y o u n g s u ffr a g is ts w h o h e lp e d fo r g e th e la st lin k s o f th a t c h a in w e r e n o t b o rn w h e n it b e g a n . O ld s u ffr a g is ts w h o h elp ed f o r g e th e firs t lin k s w e r e d ead w h e n it e n d ed .

C a r r ie C h a p m a n C a t t

Fem inists have w anted equality. Radicals and reform ists have d ifferen t ideas of w h at equality w ould be, but it has been the wisdom o f fem inism to value equality as a political goal w ith social integrity and com plex m eaning. T h e Jacobins also w anted equality, and the French R evolution w as the first w a r fo u gh t to accomplish it.

C o n servatism as a m odern political m ovem ent actually developed to resist social and political m ovem ents fo r equality, beginning w ith the egalitarian im peratives o f the French Revolution.

W om en h ave had to prove hum an status, before having any claim to equality. B ut equality has been im possible to achieve, perhaps

because, really, w o m en have not been able to prove hum an status.

T h e burden o f proof is on the victim .

N ot one inch of change has been easy or cheap. W e have fo u gh t so hard and so long for so little. T h e vo te did not change the status of w om en . T h e chan ges in w o m e n s lives that w e can see on the surface do not chan ge the statu s o f w o m en . By the yea r 2000, w o m en and their children are expected to be one hundred percent o f this n a tio n s p o or. * W e are raped, battered, and prostituted: th ese acts against us are in the fabric o f social life. A s children, w e are raped, physically abused, and prostituted. T h e co u n try en joys the injuries done to us, and spends $8 billion a year on the pleasure o f w a tch in g us being h u rt (exploitation as w ell as tortu re con stitu tin g su bstan tive harm ). T h e subordination g ets deeper: w e keep g ettin g pushed d o w n fu rth er.

Rape is an en tertain m en t. T h e co n tem pt fo r us in that fact is im m easurable; y et w e live u n d er the w e ig h t o f it. D iscrim ination is a euphem ism fo r w h a t happens to us.

It has plagued us to try to understan d w h y the statu s o f w o m en does not change. T h o se w h o hate the politics o f equality say th ey kn o w : w e are biologically destined fo r rape; G o d m ade us to be subm issive u n to o u r husbands. W e ch an ge, but o u r statu s does not ch an ge. L aw s change, bu t o u r statu s stays fixed. W e m ove into the m arket place, o n ly to face th ere classic sexual exploitation, n o w called sexual harassm ent. Rape, b attery, prostitu tion, and incest stay the sam e in that th ey keep happenin g to us as part o f w h a t life is: even th ou gh w e nam e the crim es against us as such and try to keep the victim s from

being d estroyed by w h a t w e cann ot stop from

happening to them . A n d th e silence stays in place too, h o w e v e r m uch w e try to dislodge it w ith o u r tru th s. W e say w h a t has happened to us, but new sp apers, g o v ern m en ts, the cu ltu re that excludes us as fu lly h u m an participants, w ipe us o ut, w ipe ou t o u r speech: by refu sin g to h ear it. W e are the tree falling in th e desert. Should it m atter: th ey are th e desert.

T h e cost o f try in g to sh a tte r the silence is aston ish ing to th ose w h o do it: the w o m en , raped, battered, p rostitu ted, w h o h ave so m eth in g * For a comprehensive analysis of how the feminization of poverty brutally impacts on people of color in the United States, see Right-wing Women, The Women's Prc^ss, 1983, 'T h e Coming Gynocide," especially pp. 162-173.

to say and say it. T h ey stand there, even as they are erased.

G o ve rn m en ts turn from them ; courts ignore them; this cou ntry disavow s and dispossesses them . M en ridicule, threaten, or hurt them .

W om en jeopardized

by th em — silence being safer than

speech— betray them . It is ugly to w atch the com placent destroy the brave. It is horrible to w atch p o w er win.

Still, equality is w h at w e w ant, and w e are going to g et it. W hat w e understand about it n o w is that it cannot be proclaimed; it m ust be created. It has to take the place of subordination in hum an experience: physically replace it. Equality does not coexist w ith subordination, as if it w ere a little pocket located som ew h ere w ithin it. Equality has to win. Subordination has to lose. T h e subordination o f w om en has not even been knocked loose, and equality has not m aterially advanced, at least in part because the pornography has been creating sexualized inequality in hiding, in private, w h ere the abuses occur on a m assive scale.

Equality for w om en requires m aterial rem edies for pornography, w h e th er pornography is central to the inequality o f w om en or only one cause o f it. P ornography's antagonism to civil equality, integrity, and self-determ ination for w om en is absolute; and it is effective in m aking that antagonism socially real and socially determ ining.

T h e law that C atharine A. M acK in non and I w ro te m aking porn ography a violation o f w o m e n s civil rights recognizes the injury that porn ography does: h o w it hurts w om en's rights of citizenship th ro u gh sexual exploitation and sexual torture both.

T h e civil rights law em pow ers w o m en by allow ing w om en to civilly sue those w h o hu rt us th rou gh pornography by trafficking in it, coercing people into it, forcing it on people, and assaulting people directly because o f a specific piece o f it.

T h e civil rights law

does not force the porn ography back

underground. T h ere is no prior restraint or police po w er to m ake arrests, w hich w ould then result in a revivified black m arket. This respects the reach o f the First A m end m ent, but it also keeps the porn ograph y from gettin g sexier— hidden, forbidden, dirty, happily back in the land o f the obscene, sexy slime oozing on g re a t, books.

W anting to co ver porn ography up, hide it, is the first response of those w h o need porn ography to the civil rights law. If p orn ography is hidden, it is still accessible to m en as a male right o f access to w om en;

its injuries to the statu s o f w o m en are safe and secu re in th ose hidden room s, behind those opaque covers; the abuses of w o m en are sustained as a private right supported by public policy. T h e civil rights law puts a flood o f light on the po rn ograp h y, w h a t it is, h o w it is used, w h a t it does, those w h o are h u rt by it.

T h e civil rights law ch an ges the p o w er relationship b etw een the p o rn ograph ers

and w o m en :

it

stops

the

p o rn ograp h ers from

producing discrim ination w ith the total im pun ity th ey n o w enjoy, and g ives w o m en a legal standing resem bling equality from w h ich to repudiate the subordination itself. T h e secret-police p o w er o f the p orn ographers suddenly has to co n fro n t a m odest am o u n t o f due process.

T h e civil righ ts law u nderm ines the subordination o f w o m en in society by co n fro n tin g the p orn ograph y, w h ich is the system atic sexualization o f th at subordination. P o rn o g ra p h y is inequality. T h e civil righ ts law w o u ld allo w w o m en to advance equ ality by rem ovin g this co n crete discrim ination and h u rtin g econom ically those w h o m ake, sell, distribute, or exhibit it. T h e po rn ograp h y, being p ow er, h as a right to exist that w e are not allow ed to challenge under this system o f law . A fte r it h u rts us b y being w h a t it is and doing w h a t it does, the civil rights law w ou ld allo w us to h u rt it back. W om en , not being p o w er, do n o t h ave a righ t to exist equal to the righ t the p o rn o g rap h y has. If w e did, the po rn ograp h ers w ou ld be precluded from exercisin g their rights at the exp en se o f ours, and since th ey cann ot exercise th em a n y o th er w a y , th ey w o u ld be precluded period.

W e com e to the legal system beggars: th o u g h in the public dialogue arou nd th e passage o f this civil rights law w e h ave th e satisfaction of being regarded as thieves.

T h e civil righ ts la w is w o m e n s speech. It defines an in ju ry to us fro m o u r point o f view . It is prem ised on a repudiation o f sexual subordination w h ich is born o f o u r experience o f it. It breaks the silence. It is a sen ten ce that can hold its o w n against the m ale flood. It is a sentence on w h ich w e can build a paragraph, then a page.

It is m y view , learned largely fro m C a th a rin e M acK in n on , that w o m e n h ave a righ t to be effective. T h e porn ograp h ers, o f cou rse, do not think so, no r do o th e r m ale suprem acists; and it is hard for w o m e n to th in k so. W e h a ve been told to ed u cate people on the evils o f p o rn ograph y: before th e d evelo p m en t o f this civil righ ts law , w e

w e re told just to keep quiet about pornography altogether; but now that w e have a law w e w an t to use, w e are encouraged to educate and stop there. Law educates. This law educates. It also allows w om en to do som ething. In hu rting the pornography back, w e gain ground in m aking equality m ore likely, m ore possible— som eday it will be real.

W e h ave a m eans to fight the pornographers' trade in w om en. W e have a m eans to get at the tortu re and the terror. W e have a m eans w ith w hich to challenge the pornography's efficacy in m aking exploitation and inferiority the bedrock o f w om en's social status. T h e civil rights law introduces into the public consciousness an analysis: of w h a t porn ography is, w h at sexual subordination is, w h at equality m ight be. T h e civil rights law introduces a n ew legal standard: these things are not done to citizens o f this country. T h e civil rights law introduces a n ew political standard: these things are not done to hum an beings. T h e civil rights law provides a n e w m ode of action for w o m en throu gh w hich w e can pursue equality and because o f w hich our speech will have social m eaning. T h e civil rights law gives us back w h at the pornographers have taken from us: hope rooted in real possibility.

Notes 1. G u s t a v e F lau b e rt, Letters, tra n s. J. M . C o h e n (L o n d o n : G e o r g e W e id e n fe ld & N ic o lso n L im ite d , 2. D .

H.

1950), p. 94.

L a w r e n c e , Sex, Literature and Censorship ( N e w Y o r k : T w a y n e

1953), p. 9.

3. H a ro ld G a r d in e r (S. J.), Catholic Viewpoint on Censorship (G a rd e n C ity : H a n o v e r H o u s e , 1958), p. 65.

4. G e o r g e s B ataille, Death and Sensuality ( N e w Y o r k : B alla n tin e B o o k s, Inc., 1969), p. 12.

P u b lis h e rs ,

5. L a w r e n c e , Sex, Literature and Censorship, p. 74.

6. Vladimir Nabokov, "Afterword," blita (New York: Berkley Publishing Corporation, 1977), p. 284.

7. T h e a c tu a l lin e is "In d r e a m s b e g in s re s p o n s ib ility , " q u o te d b y Y e a t s a s a n e p ig ra p h to h is c o lle ctio n , Responsibilities.

8. M a ria Isabel B a rr e n o , M a ria T e r e s a H o rta , a n d M a ria V e lh o d a C o s ta ,

The Three Marias: New Portuguese Letters, trans. Helen R. Lane (New York: Bantam Books, 1976), p. 291.

9. Nadezhda Mandelstam, Hope Against Hope, trans. Max Hayward (New York: Atheneum, 1978), pp. 42-43.

10. Franz Kafka, "In the Penal Colony," pp. 191-227, The Penal Colony, trans.

Willa and Edwin Muir (New York: Schocken Books, 1965), p. 194.

11. Kafka, "In the Penal Colony," p. 197.

12. Kafka, "In the Penal Colony," p. 203.

13. Kafka, "In the Penal Colony," p. 197.

Pornography Is A Civil Rights Issue 1986

I testified before the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography on January 22 , 1986, in New York City. Numerous civil liberties folks, including pro-pornography "feminists, " had already testified in other cities. I spoke to the Commission because my friends, feminists who work against pornography, asked me to. Every effort was made by the pro-pornography lobby to discredit the Commission. A memo dated June 5, 1986, from Gray and Company, the largest public relations firm in Washington D . C., with ties to both the Reagan White House and the old Kennedy White House, outlines a strategy to discredit the Commission. The memo was prepared for the Media Coalition, a bunch of publishing and media trade groups, including distributors, that has been very active for many years in providing legal protection for pornography, including child pornography. A campaign costing nearly one million dollars would effectively discredit the findings of the Commission by smearing those who oppose pornography, creating a hysteria over censorship, and planting news stories to say that there is no proven relationship between pornography and harm to women and children. I had one half-hour and this is my testimony. Then, the members of the Commission asked me questions. Their questions and my answers are published here. Representatives of P e n th o u se sat with A C L U lawyers and socalled feminists organized to defend pornography; and they heckled me during this testimony.

A

n d r e a D w o r k in c a l l e d as a w itn ess on behalf o f the A tto rn e y

G en eral's C om m ission on P ornography, testified as follow s: *

* T his text is based on the Justice D ep artm en ts transcript, prepared by Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc., which w as compared against tape recordings and revised for accuracy.

The author has also made slight editorial changes for clarity.

M S D W O R K IN : T h a n k you ve ry m uch. M y nam e is A ndrea D w ork in . I am a citizen o f the United States, and in this co u n try w h ere I live, e v e ry year m illions and m illions o f pictures are being m ade o f w o m en w ith o u r legs spread. W e are called beaver, w e are called pussy, o u r genitals are tied up, th ey are pasted, m akeup is put on them to m ake them pop ou t o f a page at a male view er. M illions and millions o f pictures are m ade o f us in postures of subm ission and sexual access so that o ur vaginas are exposed for penetration, o ur anuses are exposed fo r penetration, o u r throats a re used as if th ey are genitals fo r penetration. In this co u n try w h ere I live as a citizen real rapes are on film and are being sold in the m arketplace. A nd the m ajor m otif o f p o rn ograph y as a form of en tertain m en t is that w o m en are raped and violated and hum iliated until w e discover that w e like it and at that point w e ask fo r m ore.

In this co u n try w h ere I live as a citizen, w o m en are penetrated by anim als and objects fo r public en tertain m ent, w o m en are urinated on and defecated on, w o m en and girls are used interchangeably so that g ro w n w o m en are m ade up to look like five- or six-year-old children su rrou nd ed by toys, presented in m ainstream pornographic publi足 cations fo r anal penetration. T h ere are m agazines in w h ich adult w o m en are presented w ith their pubic areas shaved so that th ey resem ble children.

In this co u n try w h ere I live, th ere is a traffickin g in p o rn ograp h y that exploits m entally and physically disabled w o m en , w o m en w h o are m aim ed; there is am p utee p orn ograph y, a trade in w o m en w h o h ave been m aim ed in that w a y , as if that is a sexual fetish fo r m en. In this co u n try w h ere I live, there is a trade in racism as a form o f sexual pleasure, so that the plantation is presented as a form o f sexual gratification fo r the black w o m an slave w h o asks please to be abused, please to be raped, please to be hu rt. Black skin is presented as if it is a fem ale genital, and all th e violence and the abuse and the hum iliation th at is in gen eral directed against fem ale genitals is directed against the black skin o f w o m e n in p orn ograph y.

A sian w o m en in this co u n try w h e re I live are tied from trees and h u n g fro m ceilings and h u n g from d o o rw a ys as a form o f public en tertain m en t. T h e re is a co ncentration cam p p o rn ograp h y in this co u n try w h e re I live, w h e re the co n cen tration cam p and the atrocities th at occurred th ere are presented as existing fo r the sexu al pleasure

of the victim , of the w om an, w h o orgasm s to the real abuses that occurred, not very long ago in history.

In the cou n try w h ere I live as a citizen, there is a pornography of the hum iliation o f w om en w h ere ev ery single w a y of hum iliating a hum an being is taken to be a form o f sexual pleasure for the view er and fo r the victim ; w h ere w o m en are covered in filth, including feces, including m ud, including paint, including blood, including semen; w h e re w om en are tortured for the sexual pleasure of those w h o w atch and those w h o do the torture, w h ere w om en are m urdered for the sexual pleasure o f m urdering w om en, and this m aterial exists because it is fun, because it is en tertainm ent, because it is a form of pleasure, and th ere are those w h o say it is a form o f freedom .

C ertain ly it is freedom for those w h o do it. C ertain ly it is freedom for those w h o use it as entertainm ent, but w e are also asked to believe that it is freedom fo r those to w h o m it is done.

T h en this en tertainm ent is taken, and it is used on oth er w om en, w o m en w h o aren't in the pornography, to force th ose w om en into prostitution, to m ake them im itate the acts in the pornography. T h e w o m en in the pornography, sixty-five to seven ty percent o f them w e believe are victim s o f incest or child sexual abuse. T h e y are poor w om en; th ey are not w om en w h o have opportunities in this society.

T h e y are frequ en tly run aw ays w h o are picked up by pimps and exploited. T h e y are frequ en tly raped, the rapes are filmed, th ey are kept in prostitution by blackmail. T h e porn ography is used on prostitutes by johns w h o expect them to replicate the sexual acts in the porn ograph y, no m atter h o w dam aging it is.

P ornography

is used in rape— to plan it, to execu te it, to

choreograph it, to en gender the excitem ent to com m it the act.

P ornography is used in gang rape against w om en. W e see an increase since th e release o f Deep Throat in throat rape— w h ere w o m en sh o w up in em ergen cy room s because m en believe th ey can penetrate, deep-thru st, to the bottom o f a w om an 's throat. W e see increasing use o f all elem ents o f porn ography in battery, w h ich is the m ost com m only com m itted violent crim e in this cou n try, including the rape o f w o m en b y anim als, including m aim ing, including 'h eavy bondage, including o u trigh t torture.

W e h ave seen in the last eight years an increase in the use o f

cam eras in rapes. A nd th ose rapes are film ed and then th ey are put on the m arketplace and th ey are protected sp eech— th ey are real rapes.

W e see a use o f p o rn ograph y in the harassm ent o f w o m en on jobs, especially in nontraditional jobs, in the harassm ent o f w o m en in education, to create terro r and com pliance in the hom e, w h ich as you k n o w is the m ost d an gerou s place fo r w o m en in this society, w h e re m ore violence is com m itted against w o m en than a n y w h ere else. W e see p o rn ograp h y used to create h arassm ent o f w o m en and children in n eighborhoods that are saturated w ith porn ograp h y, w h ere people com e from o th er parts of the city and then p rey on the populations of people w h o live in th ose neighborhoods, and th at increases physical attack and verbal assault.

W e see po rn ograp h y h aving introduced a profit m otive into rape.

W e see that film ed rapes are protected speech. W e see th e cen trality o f p o rn ograp h y in serial m urders. T h e re are sn u ff films. W e see boys im itating p orn ograph y. W e see the a verage age of rapists going d ow n . W e are begin n in g to see gan g rapes in elem en tary schools com m itted b y elem en tary school age boys im itating porn ograp h y.

We

see

sexual

assault

a fte r

death

w h e re

freq u en tly

the

p o rn ograp h y is the m otive fo r the m u rd er because the m an believes th at he w ill g et a particular kind o f sexual pleasure h aving sex w ith a w o m an a fter she is dead.

W e see a m ajor trade in w o m en , w e see th e to rtu re o f w o m e n as a fo rm o f en tertain m en t, and w e see w o m en also su fferin g th e injury o f objectification— that is to say w e are d ehum anized. W e are treated as if w e are su bh u m an, and that is a precondition fo r violence against us.

I live in a co u n try w h e re if yo u film any act o f hum iliation or tortu re, and if the victim is a w o m an , the film is both en tertain m en t and it is protected speech. N o w that tells m e so m eth in g about w h a t it m eans to be a w o m an citizen in this co u n try , and the m eaning o f being second class.

W hen y o u r rape is en tertain m en t, y o u r w o rth lessn ess is absolute.

Y o u h ave reached the nadir o f social w o rth lessn ess. T h e civil im pact o f p o rn o g rap h y on w o m en is staggerin g. It keeps us socially silent, it keeps us socially com pliant, it keeps us afraid in neighborhoods; and it crea tes a vast h opelessness fo r w o m en , a vast despair. O n e lives

inside a nightm are of sexual abuse that is both actual and potential, and you have the great joy of know in g that you r nightm are is som eone else's freedom and som eone else's fun.

N o w , a great deal has happened in this cou ntry to legitimize p ornography in the last ten to fifteen years. T h ere are people w h o are responsible for the fact that pornography is n o w a legitim ate form of public entertainm ent.

N um ber one, the lobby o f law yers w h o w o rk for the pornograph足 ers; the fact that the pornographers pay law yers big bucks to fight for them , not just in the courts, but in public, in the public dialogue; the fact that law yers interpret constitutional principles in light o f the profit interest o f the pornographers.

N u m ber tw o, the collusion of the A m erican Civil Liberties Union w ith the pornographers, w hich includes taking m oney from them . It includes using buildings that pornographers o w n and not paying rent, it includes using pornography in benefits to raise m oney. It includes not only defending them in court but also doing publicity for them , including organizing events for them , as the H ugh H efner First A m en d m en t A w a rd s is organized by A C L U people for Playboy. It includes publishing in their m agazines. It includes deriving great pride and econom ic benefit from w orkin g privately fo r the pornographers, w hile publicly pretending to be a disinterested advocate o f civil liberties and free speech.

I w a n t you to contrast the behavior o f the A C L U in relation to the pornographers w ith their activities in relation to the Klan and the Nazis. T h e A C L U pretends to understand that they are all equally pernicious. But do A C L U people publish in the Klan new sletter? No. D o th ey go to N azi social even ts? No. D o th ey g o to cocktail parties at N azi headquarters? N o, they don't, at least not yet.

Finally, th ey have colluded in this sense, that th ey have convinced m any o f us that the standard fo r speech is w h a t I w ould call a repulsion standard. T h a t is to say w e find the m ost repulsive person in the society and w e defend him. I say w e find the m ost pow erless people in this society, and w e defend them. T hat's the w a y w e increase righ ts o f speech in this society.

A

third gro u p

that colludes

to legitim ize porn ography are

publishers and the so-called legitim ate media. T h e y pretend to believe

that under this system o f law there is a First A m en d m en t that is indivisible and absolute, w hich it has n ever been.

A s you kn o w , the First A m en d m en t protects speech that has already been expressed from state interference. T h a t m eans it protects those w h o o w n media. T h e re is no affirm ative responsibility to open com m unications to those w h o are pow erless in the society at large.

A s a result, the o w n e rs o f media, the new spapers, the T V n etw o rk s, are com fortable w ith h avin g w o m e n s bodies defined as the speech o f pim ps, because th ey a re protecting their rights to profit as o w n ers, and th e y think that that is w h a t the First A m en d m en t is for.

I am asham ed to say that people in m y profession, w riters, h ave also colluded w ith the porn ographers. W e provide th eir so-called socially redeem ing valu e, and th ey w rap the tortu red bodies o f w o m en in the w o rk that w e do.

Fourth, politicians h ave colluded w ith

the porn ograp h ers in

m unicipalities all o v e r this co u n try. T h e y do it in these w ays: Z o n in g law s do not keep p o rn og rap h y o u t o f cities. T h e y are an official legal perm ission to traffic in p orn ograph y. A n d as a result politicians are able to denou nce p o rn o g rap h y m oralistically w h ile p rotecting it th ro u gh zon in g law s.

Z o n in g law s im pose po rn ograp h y on poor neighborhoods, on w o rkin g-class neighborhoods, on neighborhoods w h e re people o f color live, and all o f th ose people h ave to deal w ith the increase in crim e, th e terrible harassm ent, the d egradation o f the quality o f life in their neigh borh oods, and the politicians g et to p rotect the p rop erty valu es o f th e rich. T h e re is an equal p rotection issue here: w h y the state m akes som e people pay so o th er people can profit.

But that issue has n e ver been raised. W e h a ve n e ve r been able to sue a city u nd er th e equal protection th eory, because law yers are on th e o th e r side. L a w yers belong prim arily to p o rn ograp h ers, and th e people w h o live in these neigh bo rh o o d s th at are saturated w ith p o rn og rap h y are p o w erless people. T h e y don't ev en h a ve p o w er in their o w n m unicipalities.

In addition, w h a t p o rn og rap h ers do in m unicipalities is that th ey b u y land that is targeted fo r d evelo p m en t b y cities. T h e y hold th at

land hostage. T h e y develop political p ow er through negotiating around that land. T h e y m ake huge profits, and they get influence in local city governm ents.

Five, not finally but next to the last, a great colluder w ith the pornographers w as the last presidential Com m ission on O bscenity and

Pornography.

They

w ere

v e ry

effective

in

legitim izing

pornography in this country. T h ey appeared to be looking for a proverbial ax m urderer w h o w ould w atch pornography and within tw en ty -fo u r or forty-eigh t hours go out and kill som eone in a horrible and clear w ay. T h e cou n try is saturated w ith pornography, and saturated w ith violence against w om en, and saturated w ith the interfacing o f the tw o. And the Com m ission didn't find it.

N one of the scientific research that they relied on to com e to their conclusions is w o rth anyth in g today. Its all invalid. I ask you to take seriously the fact that society does not exist in a laboratory, that w e are talking about real things that happen to real people, and that's w h a t w e are asking you to take som e responsibility for.

Finally, the ultim ate colluders in the legitim izing o f pornography, o f course, are the consum ers. In 1979 w e had a $4-billion-a-year ind u stry in this country. By 1985 it w as an $8-billion-a-year industry.

T h o se consum ers include m en in all w alks of life: law yers, politicians, w riters, professors, ow n ers o f media, police, doctors, m aybe even com m issioners on presidential com m issions. N o one really know s, do they?

A nd no m atter w h ere w e look, w e can't find the consum ers. But w h a t w e learn is the m eaning o f first-class citizenship, and the m eaning o f first-class citizenship is that you can use you r auth ority as m en and as professionals to protect porn ography both by developing argu m en ts to protect it and by using real social and econom ic p ow er to protect it.

A n d as a result of all o f this, the harm to w o m en rem ains invisible; even th ou gh w e have the bodies, the harm to w o m en rem ains invisible. U nderlying the invisibility o f this harm is an assum ption th at w h a t is done to w o m en is natural, that even if a w o m an is forced to do som ething, so m eh o w it falls w ithin the sphere o f h er, natural responsibilities as a w om an . W hen the sam e things are done to boys, those things are perceived as an outrage. T h e y are called unnatural.

But if you force a w o m an to do som ething that she w a s born to do,

then the violence to h er is not perceived as a real violation o f her.

In addition, the harm to w o m en o f po rn ograp h y is invisible because m ost sexual abuse still occurs in private, even th ou gh w e have this photographic d ocum entation o f it, called the p o rn ograph y industry.

W om en are ex tre m ely isolated, w o m en don't h ave credibility, w o m en are not believed b y people w h o m ake social policy.

In addition, the harm o f po rn ograp h y rem ains invisible because w o m en have been historically excluded from the protections o f the C o n stitu tio n ; and as a result, the violations o f o u r hum an rights, w h e n th ey don't occur the sam e w a y violations to m en occur, have not been recognized o r taken seriously, and w e do n ot have rem edies for them und er law .

In addition, p o rn og rap h y is invisible in its harm to w o m en because w o m en are p oorer than m en and m an y o f the w o m en exploited in p o rn ograp h y are v e ry poor, m an y o f them are illiterate, and also because th ere is a g reat deal o f fem ale com pliance w ith brutality, and th e com pliance is based on fear, it s based on pow erlessness and it is based on a reaction to the v e ry real violence o f the p ornographers.

Finally, the harm is invisible because o f the smile, because w o m en are m ade to smile, w o m en aren 't just m ade to do th e sex acts. W e are m ade to sm ile w hile w e do them .

So y o u w ill find in p o rn og rap h y w o m en pen etratin g th em selves w ith sw o rd s o r d aggers, and y o u will see the smile. Y o u w ill see th in gs th at can n ot be done to a hu m an being and th at are done to m en on ly in political circum stan ces o f tortu re, and y o u will see a w o m an forced to smile.

A n d this sm ile w ill be believed, and the in ju ry to h er as a h u m an being, to h er body and to h er h eart and to h er soul, will not be believed.

N o w , w e have been told th at w e h a ve an a rg u m en t h ere about speech, not about w o m en bein g h u rt. A n d y e t the em blem o f that a rg u m e n t is a w o m an bound and gag ged and w e are supposed to believe th at th at is speech. W h o is th at speech fo r? W e h ave w o m en being tortu red and w e are told that that is som ebody's speech? W h ose speech is it? It's th e speech o f a pimp, it is not the speech o f a w o m an .

T h e o n ly w o rd s w e h ear in p o rn o g rap h y fro m w o m en are that w o m e n w a n t to be h u rt, ask to be h u rt, like to be raped, g et sexual p leasure fro m sexu al violence; and even w h en a w o m an is co vered in

filth, w e are supposed to believe that her speech is that she likes it and she w an ts m ore of it.

T h e reality for w om en in this society is that pornography creates silence for w om en. T h e pornographers silence w om en. O u r bodies are their language. T heir speech is made out o f our exploitation, our subservience, our injury and our pain, and they can't say anything w ith ou t hurting us, and w h en you protect them , you protect only their right to exploit and h u rt us.

Pornography is a civil rights issue for w om en because pornography sexualizes inequality, because it turns w om en into subhum an creatures.

Pornography is a civil rights issue for w om en because it is the system atic exploitation of a group of people because o f a condition of birth. Pornography creates bigotry and hostility and aggression tow ards all w om en, targets all w om en, w ith ou t exception.

P ornography is the suppression of us through sexual exploitation and abuse, so that w e have no real m eans to achieve civil equality; and the issue here is simple, it is not com plex. People are being hurt, and yo u can help them or you can help those w h o are hurting them . W e need civil rights legislation, legislation that recognizes pornography as a violation of the civil rights of w om en.

W e need it because civil rights legislation recognizes the fact that the harm here is to hum an beings. W e need that recognition. W e need civil rights legislation because it puts the p ow er to act in the hands of the people w h o have been forced into pornographized pow erlessness, and that's a special kind o f pow erlessness, that's a pow erlessness that is supposed to be a form of sexual pleasure.

W e need civil rights legislation because only those to w h om it has happened k n o w w h at has happened. T h ey are the people w h o are the experts. T h e y have the know ledge. T h e y k n o w w h a t has happened, h o w it's happened; only they can really articulate, from beginning to end, the reality o f porn ograph y as a hum an rights injury. W e need civil rights legislation because it gives us som ething back after w h at th e porn ographers have taken from us.

T h e m otivation to fight back keeps people alive. People need it for their dignity, fo r their ability to continue to exist as citizens in a co u n try that needs their creativity and needs their presence and needs

the existence

that has been taken from

them by the

p ornographers. W e need civil rights legislation because, as social policy, it says to a population o f people that th ey h ave hum an w o rth , th ey have hum an w o rth , that this society recogn izes that they have hum an w o rth .

W e need it because it's the only legislative rem edy thus far that is d raw n n arro w ly en ou gh to co n fro n t the hum an rights issues for people w h o are being exploited and discrim inated against, w ith o u t becom ing an in stru m en t of police p o w er to suppress real expression.

W e need the civil rights legislation because the process o f civil d isco very is a v e ry im portant one, and it will g ive us a great deal o f in form ation fo r potential crim inal prosecutions, against organized crim e, against porn ographers, and I ask y o u to look at the exam ple of the S o u th ern P o v erty L aw C e n te r and their K lan w atch Project, w h ich has used civil suits to g et crim inal indictm ents against the Klan.

Finally, w e need civil rights legislation because the o nly really dirty w o rd in this society is the w o rd "w o m e n , " and a civil rights approach says that this society repudiates the brutalization o f w om en .

W e are against obscen ity law s. W e don't w a n t them . I w a n t you to understand w h y , w h e th e r you end up agreein g or not.

N u m b er one, the p o rn ograph ers use obscenity law s as part o f their form ula fo r m aking porn ography. All th ey need to do is to provide som e literary, artistic, political or scientific value and th ey can hang w o m en from the rafters. A s long as th ey m anage to m eet that form ula, it doesn't m atter w h a t th ey do to w om en.

A n d in the old days, w h en obscen ity law s w e re still being enforced, in

m an y

places— for

instance

the

m ost

sadom asochistic p o r­

n o g ra p h y— the genitals w e re a lw ays covered because if the genitals w e re a lw ay s covered , that w o u ld n 't kick o ff a police prosecution.

N u m b er tw o , the use o f the p ru rien t interest stand ard — h o w e v e r th at standard is constru ed in this n e w era, w h en the Su p rem e C o u rt has taken tw o syn o n ym s, 'la sciv io u sn ess" and 'lu s t , " and said that th ey m ean d ifferen t things, w h ich is m ind-boggling in and o f itself.

W h atev er pru rien t interest is con stru ed to m ean, the reaction of ju ro rs to m aterial— w h e th e r th ey are supposed to be aroused or w h e th e r

th ey

are

not allow ed

to

be

aroused,

w h a tev er

the

in stru ction s o f th e co u rt— has n o th in g to do w ith the objective reality o f w h a t is happening to w o m en in po rn ograp h y.

T h e third reason that obscen ity law cann ot w o rk for us is: w h a t do

com m u n ity standards m ean in a society w hen violence against w o m en is pandemic, w hen according to the FBI a w om an is battered ev ery eighteen seconds and it's the m ost com m only com m itted violent crim e in the cou n try? W hat w ould com m unity standards have m eant in the segregated South? W hat w ould com m unity standards h ave m eant as w e approached the atrocity of N azi"G erm any? W hat are com m u n ity standards in a society w h ere w om en are persecuted for being w om en and pornography is a form o f political persecution?

O b scen ity law s are also w om an -hating in their construction. Their basic presum ption is that it s w om en 's bodies that are dirty. T h e standards o f obscenity law don't acknow ledge the reality o f the technology. T h e y w ere d raw n up in a society w h ere obscenity w as construed to be essentially w ritin g and draw ing; and n o w w h at w e h ave is m ass production in a w a y that real people are being hurt, and the consum ption o f real people by a real technology, and obscenity law s are not adequate to that reality.

Finally, obscenity laws, at the discretion o f police and prosecutors, will keep obscenity out o f the public view , but it rem ains available to m en in private. It rem ains available to individual m en, it rem ains available to all-male groups; and w h en ev er it is used, it still creates bigotry, hostility and aggression tow ards all w om en. It's still used in sexual abuse as part o f sexual abuse. It's still made through coercion, th rou gh blackmail and through exploitation.

I am going to ask you to do several things. T h e first thing I am going to ask you to do is listen to w om en w h o w an t to talk to you about w h a t has happened to them . Please listen to them . T h ey know , they k n o w h o w this w orks. Y ou are asking people to speculate; they know , it has happened to them .

I am going to ask you to m ake these recom m endations. T h e first recom m endation I would like you to m ake is to have the Justice D ep artm ent instruct law -en forcem ent agencies to keep records o f the use o f porn ography in violent crim es, especially in rape and battery, in incest and child abuse, in m urder, including sexual assault a fter death, to take note o f those m urders that are com m itted for sexual reasons. T h e y should keep track, fo r instance, o f suicides of teenage boys, and the place o f porn ography in those suicides. T h ey should keep track of both the use of porn ography before and during

the com m ission o f a violent crim e and the presence of porn ograp h y at a violent crime.

1 w a n t to say that a lot o f the inform ation that w e h ave about this, w hat

we

are

calling

a

correlation,

doesn't

com e

from

law -

en fo rcem en t officials; it com es from the testim on y o f sex offen ders.

T h a t's h o w

we know

that po rn ograp h y is m eaningful in the

com m ission o f sexual offen ses. H ave th e FBI report that inform ation in the U niform C rim e Reports, so that w e begin to get som e real standard here.

N u m b er tw o , g et p orn ograph y ou t o f all prisons. It's like sending d yn am ite to terrorists. T h o se people h ave com m itted violent crim es against w o m en . T h e y consu m e porn ograph y. T h e y com e back ou t on the street. T h e recidivism rate is unbelievable, not to m ention that prison is a rape-saturated society. W h at about the righ ts o f those m en w h o are being raped in prisons, and the relationship o f p o rn ograp h y to th e rapes o f them ?

N o on e should be sentenced to a life o f hell being raped in a prison.

Y o u can do som eth in g about it by g ettin g the po rn ograp h y o u t of prisons.

N u m b er three, en force law s against pim ping and pandering against porn ographers. Pandering is paying fo r sex to m ake po rn ograp h y of it. A pand erer is a n y person w h o procures an o th er person fo r the p urposes o f prostitution. T h is law

has been enforced

against

p orn ograp h ers in C alifornia. P rosecu te the m akers o f po rn ograp h y u nder pim ping and pandering law s.

N u m b er fou r, m ake it a Justice D ep artm en t priority to en force R I C O [the R acketeer Influenced and C o rru p t O rg an iza tio n s Act] against the p o rn o g rap h y ind u stry. R acketeering activity m eans, as y o u k n o w , an y act o r even a th reat involvin g m urder, kidnapping, extortio n , a n y traffickin g in coerced w o m e n — w hich fo r reasons that are incom prehensible to m e is still called w h ite slaving, alth o ugh the w o m en are A sian, the w o m en are black, all kinds o f w o m en are still being trafficked in in this w a y . T h is is h o w p o rn ograph ers do their business, both in relation to w o m en and in relation to distributing th eir product.

R IC O , if it w e re en fo rced against the in d u stry, could do a g reat deal to w ard breaking th e in d u stry up.

N u m ber five, please recom m end that federal civil rights legislation recognizing pornography as a virulent and vicious form of sex discrim ination be passed, that it be a civil law . It can be a separate act or it can be am ended as a separate title under the 1964 Civil Rights A ct. W e w a n t the equal protection principle o f the Fourteenth A m en d m en t to apply to w om en. T his is the w a y to do it. W e w an t a definition o f pornography that is based on the reality o f pornography, w h ich is that it is the act o f sexual subordination of w om en. T h e causes o f action need to include trafficking, coercion, forcing pornography on a person, and assault or physical injury due to a specific piece o f pornography.

I also w an t to ask you to consider, to consider, creating a criminal conspiracy provision under the civil rights law, such that conspiring to d eprive a person o f their civil rights by coercing them into p orn ography is a crim e, and that conspiring to traffic in p ornography is conspiring to deprive w om en o f o u r civil rights.

Finally, I w ould like to ask you to think about pornography in the co n text o f international law. W e have claims to m ake. W om en have claims to m ake under international law. Pornographers violate the rights of w o m en under internationally recognized principles o f law.

T h e U niversal Declaration of H um an Rights says that everyo n e has the right to life, liberty and security o f person, that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhum an or degrading treatm ent or punishm ent, that everyo n e has the right to recognition ev ery w h e re as a person before the law.

It also says that no one shall be held in slavery or servitude, that slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their form s, and in international law the trafficking in w o m en has long been recognized as a form o f slave trading.

President C a rte r signed, and I am asking you to recom m end that C o n g re ss ratify, the United N ations C o n ven tio n on the Elimination o f All Form s of Discrim ination A gain st W om en, w hich includes the follow ing article, article 6. "State Parties shall take all appropriate m easures, including legislation, to suppress all form s of traffic in w o m en and exploitation and prostitution of w o m en . " T h at gives the U nited States G o vern m en t an affirm ative obligation to act against the traffic in w om en. T his is an international problem and it requires in part an international solution.

I am also asking yo u to ackn o w led ge the international reality of th is— this is a hu m an rights issu e— fo r a v e ry personal reason, w hich is that m y grand parents cam e here, Jews fleeing from Russia, Jews fleeing from H un gary. T h o se w h o did not com e to this co u n try w e re all killed, eith er in pogrom s o r b y the N azis. T h e y cam e here fo r me. I live h ere, and I live in a co u n try w h ere w o m en are tortured as a form o f public en tertain m en t and fo r profit, and that to rtu re is upheld as a state-protected right. N o w , that is unbearable.

I am h ere asking th e sim plest thing. I am saying h u rt people need rem edies, not platitudes, not law s that you k n o w already don't w ork; people excluded from constitutional protections need equality. People silenced b y exploitation and bru tality need real speech, not to be told that w h en th ey are h u n g from m eat hooks, that is their speech.

N o b o d y in this co u n try w h o has been w o rk in g to do an yth in g about p orn ograph y, no w o m an w h o has spoken ou t against it, is goin g to g o backw ards, is goin g to fo rg et w h a t she has learned, is goin g to forget th at she has rights that aren't being acknow ledged in this cou n try.

A n d th ere are lots o f people in this co u n try , I am happy to say, w h o w a n t to live in a kind w orld , not a cruel w orld , and th ey will not accept th e hatred o f w o m en as good, w h o leso m e, A m erican fun; th ey w o n 't accept the hatred o f w o m en and the rape o f w o m en as anybody's idea o f freedom . T h e y w o n 't accept the to rtu re o f w o m e n as a civil liberty.

1 am asking yo u to help the exploited, not the exploiters. Y o u h ave a trem en dou s o p p o rtu n ity here. I am asking yo u as individuals to h ave the co u rage, because I think it's w h a t y o u will need, to actually be w illing y ou rselves to g o and cut that w o m an d o w n and untie her hands and take the gag o u t o f h er m ou th , and to do som eth in g, to risk som eth in g, fo r h er freed om .

T h a n k yo u v e ry m uch fo r listening to me. I am goin g to subm it into evidence

a copy

of

Linda

M archiano's

book

O rdeal, w hich I

understand you h a ve not seen. Sh e testified b efore y o u yesterday. I ask you , w h en yo u com e to m ake y o u r recom m en dation s, think of her. T h e o nly th in g atypical abo u t Linda is that she has had the co u rage to m ake a public figh t against w h a t has happened to her.

A n d w h a te v e r you com e up w ith , it has to help h er or it's not goin g to help an yon e. T h a n k you ve ry m uch.

F R O M T H E F L O O R : Y o u don't speak fo r all w om en .

C H A IR M A N H U D S O N : W e will m ake that a part of the record. D o C om m ission ers have questions of M s D w orkin ? M s L evin e/ M R S LEVINE: M s D w orkin , do you m ake any distinction in you r definition betw een erotica and pornography?

M S D W O R K IN : T h ere is a recently em erged definition w ithin the fem inist m ovem ent articulated, for instance, by Gloria Steinem , that says that erotica is sexually explicit m aterial that show s m utuality and reciprocity and equality. I am prepared to accept that definition as som ething that is not pornography. In the law that I am suggesting, in w h a t I hope will be a federal civil rights law, certainly the law that C ath arin e M acK in non and I developed, applies only to sexually explicit

material

that subordinates w om en

in a w a y

that is

detrim ental to o u r civil status, and not to any sexually explicit m aterial.

M R S LEVINE: I am not a law yer, and I made an attem pt to understand the ordinance. D o you think it is possible that one person's vision o f subordination is not another's, and by that instance there w ould be m aterial that Gloria or oth er people deem erotica that w ould be attackable under you r ordinance, as it is cu rren tly drafted?

M S D W O R K IN : N o, I think that the definition is very specific and v e ry concrete. It's n arrow ly constructed, an item ized definition, rath er than a general definition, so that it w ould not be$ubject to that kind o f interpretation. A nd as I think you kn o w , Gloria Steinem has been an active supporter o f this law, from the beginning, precisely because from her point of view , it does m ake that distinction in a w a y that is d e a r and concrete.

M R S LEVINE: D o I understand you, then, to think that m aterial that w ou ld not be seen— that w ould be sexually explicit, but m utually agreeable, w ould not then be considered obscene?

M S D W O R K IN : Sexually explicit, sexual equality, sexual reciprocity, and not containing an y o f the concrete scenarios that are nam ed in

* T h e comm issioners present were: H enry Hudson, chair; Judith Becker; Park Dietz; James Dobson; Ellen Levine; T ex Lezar; T h e Rev. Bruce Ritter; Frederick Schauer; Deanne Tilton.

the definition o f the ordinance w hich are all scenarios of inequality and degradation, m ostly violence.

M R S LEVINE: D o y o u think that fo r som e o f the m aterial that is n o w — could be prosecuted n o w as obscene, could not be prosecuted as obscene under y o u r definition?

MS

D W O R K IN :

Well,

under

our

definition,

there

are

tw o

corrections I need to m ake. First o f all, obscenity doesn't function in this definition at all.

M R S LEVINE: I understand that. T h a t is the only thing w e h ave now , so I am looking at the distinctions.

M S D W O R K IN : S e co n d ly , n o th in g can be p ro secu ted ; a p erso n b rin g s a civil su it.

M R S L E V IN E : I u n d e rsta n d th a t, b u t to b rin g people in to c o u rt fo r w h ic h th e y w o u ld be fin ed , a re th e re m a teria ls n o w th a t can be p ro se cu te d as o b sc en e th a t co u ld n o t be b r o u g h t in to c o u rt in a civil su it?

M S D W O R K IN : Y e s , I th in k th a t th e re a re m an y , m an y su ch m a te ria ls th at r ig h t n o w , it se em s to m e, th a t v ir tu a lly a n y th in g can be p ro s e cu te d u n d e r o b s c e n ity la w , and a b o u t th e o n ly th in g th a t isn 't, w ith all re sp e ct to th e g e n tle m a n fro m N o r th C a ro lin a , w h o s e a cco m p lish m e n ts I am n o t d e n y in g , b u t p o rn o g r a p h y is p re cise ly

w hat

o b sc e n ity

la w

h as

not

b een

u sed

a ga in st.

O b s c e n ity la w s h a v e tra d itio n a lly b een u sed a g a in st w o r k s o f lite r a tu r e and so on. T h e y a re rife fo r u se a g a in st sex ed u catio n p ro g ra m s,

b e c a u se

th e y

a re

so

v a g u e , b ecau se

co m m u n ity

sta n d a rd s can be c o n s tr u e d in so m a n y w a y s .

M RS

L E V IN E : W o u ld th e re be se x u a lly ex p licit p ictu re s o f

in te r c o u r s e th a t w a s m u tu a lly a g re e a b le th a t w o u ld th e r e fo r e not be a civil rig h ts su it, a c c o rd in g to y o u r d e fin itio n ?

M S D W O R K I N : Y e s , th e re w o u ld be.

M R S L E V IN E : S o in so m e w a y s it w o u ld be b ro a d e r?

M S D W O R K I N : In so m e w a y s it w o u ld be b ro a d e r and in so m e w a y s it w o u ld be n a r ro w e r.

M R S L E V IN E : Let m e a sk y o u th is — and I k n o w th at y o u are v e ry co n ce rn ed a b o u t vi o len ce a g a in st w o m e n , as are m ost w o m e n — in y o u r o pin ion , sh ou ld all p o rn o g ra p h y be rem o v ed , p a rticu larly the v io le n t p o rn o g ra p h y , do y o u th in k y o u w o u ld see a direct d ro p in v io len t crim es a g a in st w o m en ?

M S D W O R K IN : O f co u rse, I d on 't k n o w w h a t w e w o u ld see. M y p e rso n a l a n s w e r is I b elieve th at w e w o u ld see a drop.

M RS

L EV IN E: E ven

co m m itted

w h ile

th o u g h

so m an y

o f th ese crim es are

u n d er the in flu en ce o f alcohol and o th e r

su b sta n ce a b u se?

M S D W O R K IN : Y es. I th in k th e re is n o th in g th at has th e role th at p o rn o g ra p h y does in e n g e n d e rin g se xu a l abu se. I th in k th at's been the case fo r all th e period o f tim e th a t p o rn o g ra p h y w a s used in p riva te , in p riv a te se xu a l ab u se, and it's o n ly w ith

the

sa tu ra tio n o f th e public fo ru m th at w o m e n h a v e in a n y w a y fo u n d a rece p tive social stru c tu re to listen a b o u t th e realities o f abu se th ro u g h p o rn o g ra p h y th at h a ve been o ccu rrin g .

M R S LE V IN E : Y o u also th in k th at th e rape rates in prison s w o u ld d ro p if th e p o rn o g ra p h y w e re n ot in the p riso n s?

M S D W O R K IN : I tru ly do.

M R S L EVIN E: A r e th ere p riso n s, b y th e w a y , w h e r e th e re is no p o rn o g ra p h y perm issible?

M S D W O R K IN : A s fa r as I k n o w rig h t n o w , p o rn o g ra p h y is a b so lu te ly u n re stricte d in fed era l and sta te prisons. T h e r e w a s an in ju n ctio n re ce n tly g o tte n b y a g ro u p o f w o m e n priso n g u a rd s in th e S ta te o f C a lifo rn ia , b ecau se Hustler did a layout.

M R S LEVINE: I rem em ber that case.

M S D W O R K IN : A gan g rape o f a w om an prison guard in a prison th at v e ry m uch resem bled the pool table rape that th ey had done right before the N e w Bedford gan g rape, and those w o m en under their professional association w e n t into cou rt and got an injunction against the distribution of that particular issue, but it didn't apply to any oth er issue and it didn't happen in e v e ry state.

M R S LEVINE: T h a n k you v e ry m uch.

C H A IR M A N H U D S O N : D r D o bson , do you have questions?

D R D O B S O N : Y es, I do, M r C h airm an . M s D w o rk in , several w itn esses have spoken in fa vo r o f the civil rights approach, and several have opposed it on the gro u n d s that w e already h ave the law s on th e books to accom plish that. W ould y o u speak to th ose individuals and to that perspective?

M S D W O R K IN : Y es. W e h ave law s th at deal w ith a kind o f cosm etic social reality. T h a t is to say, w h o g ets to see the p o rn ograp h y that exists, h o w publicly accessible will it be, will it be hidden under opaque covers, will it be hidden in back room s, w h ich prim arily m eans: will it be available to m en in a segregated all-m ale w orld.

H o w th ey use it on w o m en rem ains constant; and on ly civil rights legislation speaks to the real h u m an injuries, to the people w h o are being harm ed, both in the production o f the m aterial, and in its su bsequ en t social effects, on individuals and o n w o m en as a class.

O b sce n ity law s don 't do that; th ey w e re n e ver con stru cted fo r that purpose. W ith th e best inten tions in the w orld , th ey couldn't be used th at w a y .

A n d the fla w s in th em n o w h a ve reached the point w h e re I believe th at th ey are just sim ply g o in g to im plode. T h e standards that the Su p rem e C o u rt has co n stru cted are virtu a lly — I understand that m an y people h ere h ave said th e y understand them . I understand them from m om en t to m om en t, but I don't understand them w h en I am looking at a picture o f Asian w o m en bein g h u n g from a tree, and th e issue is, is the ju ry aroused or n o t aroused?

T h e issue is that th e A sian w o m an is being h u n g from the tree because som ebody thin ks that that is sexu al so m ew h ere, and it d oesn't h a ve to be the people on the jury. It can be the person w h o too k the pictures or the p o rn ograp h er w h o prints them .

So obscenity law is in no w a y responsive to the reality o f the p o rn og rap h y in d u stry now .

D R D O B S O N : D o y o u thin k it could be? Is it possible to w rite obscen ity law s in such a w a y to redress that problem ?

M S D W O R K IN : I don't believe that it can be, because I believe that

first o f all, en forcem en t by p o lice and prosecutors will alw ays be essentially directed tow ards the control, not the evisceration, the control of organized crime; and that, therefore, if the production of pornography is not b y organized crim e— for instance, is not for p rofit— the abuses to w om en will not be in any w a y a top priority for law -en forcem ent officials. W e fight a constant problem in having law -en forcem en t officials take seriously, as you kn ow , claims o f rape, claims o f assault, claims o f battery.

O n ce there is a picture that sh o w s the w om an smiling w hile these things are being done to her, that picture, to m any m en, sadly, is proof o f h er com plicity and proof o f her consent.

D R D O B S O N : C larify one final point for me. I th ou gh t I saw a contradiction at one point w h en you recom m ended that law s against pornographers be enforced, and yet you are opposed to those laws; did I m isunderstand you?

M S D W O R K IN : I haven't recom m ended that obscenity law s be enforced. I specifically recom m ended that law s against pandering be enforced against pornographers and that R IC O be used to d estroy the p orn ography industry, which exists through w h a t is defined in R IC O as racketeering, that is, acts or threats o f m urder, extortion, et cetera, kidnapping and so on, and also a trafficking in w o m e n — and I think that the use o f those criminal law s will be very, very effective.

D R D O B S O N : O n e final question. Y ou have spoken very, very eloquently, to you r point. W h y do you not have that same fire w ith regard to children and the abuse o f children?

M S D W O R K IN : I do. Children h ave m any spokespeople. A s I know , w h en I have done T V show s in behalf of children's rights and against the exploitation of children in pornography, I am stopped on the street by, fo r instance, m any policem en w h o are happy to talk to me and w a n t to thank me for w h at I have done, and all kinds of people.

I think that the reality is that the condition of w om en and children are v e ry tied together; that is a political reality. W e both share similar kinds of exploitation and abuse th ro u gh sex; and u nfortu n ately, the reality is that people at least proclaim to be willing to do som ething about the abuses o f children but rem ain im pervious to the abuses of

adult w o m en , and that is w h y I am h ere to speak on behalf of adult w om en.

D R D O B S O N : If you equ ate them in that w a y , are you opposed to law s against child po rn ograp h y and the use o f children through p o rn ograph y?

M S D W O R K IN : N o, w h a t I w ou ld h ave done, had you asked me about law s about child p orn ograph y, before the Ferber decision, w as to explain to you w h y I th o u g h t obscenity law s could not w o rk in dealing w ith child po rn ograp h y, and w h y th ere had to be law s against th e actual abu se, and that the po rn ograp h y w as p roo f o f the abuse, and, th erefo re, th ere had to be law s against the pornography. T h e S u p rem e C o u rt has relieved m e o f th at obligation by recognizing that m uch child po rn ograp h y, fo r instance, does not arou se prurient interest, that y o u can't g e t a ju ry to say that it arouses prurient interest, b u t that that does not m ean that the p o rn ograp h y is not violative o f h u m an rights; and I believe that the sam e situation is tru e w ith w o m en , th at the p o rn o g rap h y violates o u r rights, but w e are not asking fo r a crim inal ban.

W e are asking fo r so m eth in g th at is so m uch less than a crim inal ban, it is basically such a m odest requ est fo r a social rem edy, such a m odest request fo r access to the co u rts to be able to prove our cases; and, th erefo re, it's v e ry stran ge to m e that w e m eet w ith m uch skepticism and w h a t is the com m onplace belief, frequ en tly, that if w o m en a re h u rt, it is the fau lt o f the w o m en w h o are h u rt, both the w o m en in the p o rn o g rap h y and the w o m en w h o are raped or abused.

D R D O B S O N : T h a n k you .

C H A I R M A N H U D S O N : P ro fesso r Schauer.

D R S C H A U E R : Y es, M s D w o rk in , in y o u r list o f item s that you concluded y o u r p resen tation w ith , I noted the absence o f an y d iscussion o f econom ic pressu re, boycotts, w h e th e r individual or o rgan ized o r a n y th in g o f that sort. W as that om itted o nly in term s of your

v ie w

h a v e — w o u ld

o f w hat you

our

discuss

C o m m issio n the

qu estio n

should

do,

gen erally

or do of

you

boycotts,

individual, o rgan ized , econom ic p ressu re and the like.

M S D W O R K IN : I certain ly am in fa v o r o f the p o rn ograp h y ind u stry

being boycotted, but it seem s to me that that doesn't speak to the reality o f the issue. I g re w up in an era w h en people w ere prepared not to eat lettuce, not to eat grapes, not to eat tuna fish under certain circum stances w h en the tunas w eren 't being caught the right w ay.

A nd the reality is that that constituency w h o w en t so long w ith ou t lettuce, w h o w en t so long w ith ou t grapes, consum es pornography and defends pornography and has been responsible for som e of the m ost im portant social defenses, the construction of the m ost im portant social defenses o f pornography.

I think that w ith pornography w e are dealing w ith a ve ry peculiar issue, and that is to say m en love to denounce it m oralistically in public, but do consum e it. W hen w e deal with the reality of consum ption, in term s o f w om en's rights, it is not w om en w h o are consum ing

pornography;

therefore

w om en

can't boycott por­

nography. M en are consum ing it, som etim es in secret, som etim es not. M en are using it, and it's not the kind of issue— it's like asking rapists to boycott rape, don't do it.

Well, I agree, they shouldn't do it. But the question is now w h at to do because they are doing it.

D R SC H A U E R : I guess, I m ean, w e g re w up in an era in w hich the m essage w as "don't buy grapes" rather than "don't shop in the store that sells grapes. " D o you think it could be effective to organize a— w ould y o u r particular problem that you have just referred to be substantially lessened if boycotts and econom ic pressure w ere directed against establishm ents rather than against the particular item s?

M S D W O R K IN : Well, perhaps you are aw are of fem inist activism that is directed, for instance— there is a boycott, for instance, against those

advertisers

who

advertise

in

Penthouse.

I think

that's

appropriate; and hopefully that boycott will g ro w and g ro w and g ro w . People should not buy the products o f those w h o support the tortu re o f w om en. I think that that is appropriate.

A s you perhaps know , there is m uch fem inist activism that is involved in sitting in in superm arkets, dem onstrating in different places. C ertain ly I didn't speak about all o f the kinds o f fem inist activism because I didn't think that this C om m ission w ould be particularly interested in it.

But w e try to m ake it a habit to exercise o u r rights o f political speech at e v e ry opp o rtu n ity, including d urin g po rn ograp h y m ovies, w h e n m en actually w ou ld p refer that w e keep quiet, and th ro u gh picket lines and th ro u g h sit-ins; and the first fem inist action against p o rn ograph y w as, in fact, an act o f civil disobedience in 1970.

So that the h isto ry o f activism o f fem inists against po rn ograp h y is virtu ally as old as the w o m e n s m ovem en t.

D R S C H A U E R : T h a n k you.

C H A I R M A N H U D S O N : Father R itter, do yo u h ave a question o f M s D w o rk in ?

FATH ER

R ITTE R :

Y es.

Ms

D w o rk in ,

th an k

you

fo r

your

ex tra o rd in a ry and v e ry m ovin g testim on y. M y question doesn't really im ply a n y d isagreem ent w ith w h a t you said, alth o ugh I th in k in som e w a y s I w ou ld d iffer w ith y o u on certain issues.

M y qu estion is m erely m y e ffo r t to understand one of the central th ru sts o f y o u r argu m en t. Is the issue w ith y o u m ostly the n on con sen sual aspect o f p o rn o g rap h y as it relates to the degradation o f w o m en , o r is it rath er the degradation itself w ith regards to w o m en ? Let m e illustrate.

If w e could find a m an and a w o m an w h o totally and freely agree to sadom asochistic activities, w o u ld y o u th in k th at should be prohibited, ev en th o u g h in itself it is a v e ry d egradin g thin g to occur to a w o m an and to a m an also?

M S D W O R K IN : M y a n sw e r to y o u r question is I do object to the d egradation intrinsic to the acts. T h a t is w h y I think that a definition o f p o rn o g rap h y based on sex inequality is a definition that h o n o rs h u m an d ign ity and sexuality.

I think th at I certain ly w ou ld w a n t to see rem edies against that p o rn ograp h y. B u t the reality fo r w o m en isn't put in th at h ypoth etical question. T h e fo rm s o f co ercion — including the reality o f p o verty, th e vu ln erability o f child sexual abuse in a society w h e re th at is com m onplace, as you w ell k n o w — is such th at it's v e ry hard to u n d erstan d w h a t this w o rd co n sen t m eans. If y o u look at the w a y the w o rd co n sen t is used in rape statu tes, a w o m an could be dead and h ave m et th e standard fo r co n sen t.

I m ean, it's v e ry hard to k n o w , in a so ciety in w h ich w o m e n h ave

been chattel, w h at consent is, and m ostly it's passive acquiescence.

A nd fem inists have to fight for a society in w hich w e g o w ay beyond consent as a standard for freedom , and w e are talking about self-determ ination in a w orld w ith real choices; and right n o w for w om en, that w orld of real choices does not really exist.

So m y an sw er to you r question is, that material w ould be actionable under o ur law, under o ur civil rights law; in m y view it should be, it is appropriate that it be. I think that it is intrinsically degrading, and I also think that it is dem onstrable that the material itself in its social consequences causes the acting out on w om en of the sam e dim ension o f sadom asochistic activity. T h ere is simply no reality to the notion that w om en consent to it, because w om en don't.

FR RITTER: T h an k you.

C H A IR M A N

H UDSON :

M rs

Levine,

do

you

have

another

question?

M R S LEVINE: I kn o w Park w anted to go first.

C H A IR M A N H U D S O N : D r D ietz.

D R D IE TZ: I kn o w that m any people w ould be interested to hear som e specifics about w hat kinds of depictions w ould constitute subordination o f w om en, because this is often discussed w ith som e bew ilderm ent. I w ould like to pose som e h y p o th e tica l, som e specific im ages and ask you w h eth er there is enough inform ation here to tell me if that is subordination; and if there is, is it or isn't it? Is it subordination o f w om en to depict naked— a w om an on her knees, naked, a m an standing, while the w om an fellates the man, she on her knees, he standing.

M S D W O R K IN : I need to explain som ething to you about o ur law, w hich deserves a little m ore credit than you are giving it, w hich is that the definition itself isn't actionable. All right. T h ere is nothing actionable about som ething m eeting the definition. It has to be trafficked in, som ebody has to be forced into it, it has to be forced on som ebody or it has to be used in a specific kind o f assault; so that the hypothetical question about w h eth er I think that is subordination or not depends a great deal— has the w o m en been forced into it? I w an t to kn ow . W hat is the sociology around it, is it being used on people,

are w o m en being forced to w atch it and then do it; and those are the kinds o f issues, that is w h a t is required to trigger this law.

D R D IE T Z: So if the players tru ly w e re vo lun tary, and if those exposed

to it volun tarily chose exposu re, then it w ou ld n 't be

subordination no m atter w h a t w a s depicted?

M S D W O R K IN : N o, that is not the case. If it m eets the definition, if it m eets the definition, and it's trafficked in, the idea is that it creates b ig otry and h ostility and aggression tow ard s all w o m en . T h e Indianapolis definition— w h ich I h ave h ere if yo u w a n t m e to read it at an y point, I k n o w you are all fam iliar w ith it— the Indianapolis definition w ou ld probably not include the scenario that yo u describe, because it's all violence-oriented. T h e definition is oriented tow ard the violation o f w o m en , violence against w o m en , the com m ission of rape, the creation o f pain and pleasure; and as a result, because it's violence-orien ted, none o f th ose particular scenarios fall u nd er its reach. N o w , in som e cases, that is ex tre m ely u n fo rtu n ate, because if y o u look at a film like Deep Throat, it is v e ry hard to find in the film the kind o f sexual violence that allow s this law to be triggered. Y e t so m ebo d y w as coerced into m aking that film th ro u gh the m ost reprehensible and e x tre m e violence, so som e choices h ave g o t to be m ade h ere about w h a t a re o u r priorities.

D o ro th y S tratto n w a s coerced and raped in the Playboy system .

T h ere is a h isto ry o f the exploitation o f w o m en th ro u gh sexual h arassm en t, th ro u gh coercion in the Playboy system . D o y o u w a n t th at m aterial to be covered or no t? I do. B ecause I thin k the w o m en w h o h ave been h u rt are m ore im portan t than the existen ce o f B unnies in society fo r m en. All right? B ut w h en w e are talking about the p ro to typ e fo r this legislation, w h e n w e are talking about the Indianapolis definition, it focu ses on sexu ally violent m aterial.

D R D IE T Z : I take it fro m y o u r response to o th er qu estions that you believe it does not occu r that a w o m an vo lu n tarily poses fo r pictures fo r Penthouse o r Playboy.

M S D W O R K IN : N o, that is not true. I believe th at it d oes vo lu n tarily occur. Playboy is the top o f the ladder and it's all d ow nh ill from there.

It's th e h igh est am o u n t o f m on ey that a w o m an g ets paid for posing in p o rn ograp h y; it co n sisten tly in volves the exploitation o f e x tre m e ly

y o u n g w om en w h o h ave ve ry fe w options in society, although Playboy has certainly made it part o f its m ajor publicity goal to do everyth in g that th ey can to target professional and w orkin g w om en for sexual exploitation and sexual harassm ent; and it's not that I don't think that w om en ever voluntarily are part o f pornography. I think that

the fact that w om en som etim es voluntarily are part of

pornography should not stop us from doing som ething about the w o m en w h o are coerced.

1 think the fact that m ost w o m en w h o are in pornography are victim s o f child sexual abuse is probably the m ost telling point about w h a t the pornography system is all about.

D R D IE T Z: I have a question on that one.

M S D W O R K IN : O kay. I think if you look at the pornography, w h at you see is the slick stuff; you see Playboy has pictures o f Asian w om en w ith needles in them th rou ghou t their body. T h ere is plenty of violence in Playboy. So you see that kind o f violence legitimized.

D R D IE T Z : I think w e have just slipped o ff the topic o f consent.

M S D W O R K IN : Part of w h a t I w an t to say is a lot o f the porn ography you see in the m arket if yo u go and you buy it, not in the superm arket but in the adult bookstores, are w om en w h o are so at the bottom o f the social ladder, they are so scooped up o ff the street and stood up and photographed before they nod out. T h e y are so totally at the end o f their ropes as hum an beings, at the end o f their lives, that that is the main population o f w om en that w e are talking about, not the cosm eticiz e d Playboy Bunny.

D R D IETZ: I think you m ay have som e inform ation that m ay be very helpful to us. I am going to try to elicit that.

O n e is, h o w do you k n o w about the proportion o f w om en w h o h ave, in fact, been victim ized in o th er settings, such as incestuous relationships, before com ing to porn ography? W hat is the population from w hich you k n o w that?

M S D W O R K IN : All right. First o f all there are several studies, because u n fortu n ately if one is a fem inist, one is not allowed out in public w ith o u t studies. N o m atter h o w m any w om en have com e to one and told one about w h a t has happened, that doesn't count, it

doesn't m atter. So there are several studies that p retty m uch consistently sh o w a sixty-five to se ven ty -five percen tage of w om en w h o are in prostitution or po rn ograp h y w h o have had experiences in child sexual abuse.

D R D IE T Z : T h ese are studies o f prostitu tes?

M S D W O R K IN : Studies o f prostitutes.

D R D IE T Z : A re th ere any studies o f w o m e n — you m ay not think its possible. Is there such a thing in y o u r view as a w o m an en gagin g in hard-core p o rn ograph y w h o is not a prostitu te?

M S D W O R K IN : N o, in m y view there is no such thing.

D R D IE TZ: So the studies o f p rostitu tes w ould include w o m en w h o se pictures h ave not been taken?

M S D W O R K IN : Y es.

D R D IE T Z : But you don't h ave studies of w o m en exclusively of w h o m pictures are taken?

M S D W O R K IN : N o, the studies are in fact just being generated by a lot o f the political w o rk that w e 'v e been doing. T h e m ost w e have right n o w is som ethin g th at is not so m uch a stu d y, alth o ugh it w as printed as such, by the D elaney S treet Foundation on D ivisadero Street in San Francisco, w h e re th ey did a stu d y of 200 p rostitu tes and asked no qu estions about p o rn ograp h y at all, and w e re given so m uch in form ation abo ut it, that th ey published their findings, even th ou gh th ey are not scientifically valid. O f th ose 200 w o m en , I believe there w e re 193 cases o f rape, 17 8 cases o f child sexual abuse. T h is is in a population o f 200 w o m en , and a v e ry large n u m ber of th em had been put into p o rn o g rap h y as children. I don't h ave it w ith m e and I don't rem em b er the percen tages, but 111 get it fo r you if yo u w a n t it. ["Pornograph y and Sexu al A b u se o f W om en , " by M im i H. Silber and A yala M . Pines in Sex Roles, Vol. 10, N os. 11/12 , 1984, pp. 857-868] I hope n o w that the studies are goin g to be done. W e are asking rape crisis cen ters all o ver the co u n try to begin intake inform ation on all o f this. W e are doing w h a t w e can to g et the in form ation , but w e h ave had no help.

D R D IE T Z : W ould it be co rrect to say that it is y o u r view that o f the

w o m en

who

have their pictures taken

in a m anner that is

dissem inated for the sexual pleasure o f m en, that som e proportion of those w om en have been criminally coerced at the ve ry m om ent of the photographs being taken?

M S D W O R K IN : Yes. D R D IETZ: T h at is, th ey have a gu n to their head. O r som eone has just beaten them .

M S D W O R K IN : Yes. D R D IETZ: T h a t there is another proportion w h o se coercion is m ore like that o f battered w om en w h o for tw o years have been kept captive and this day seem s to be going sm oothly, but they k n o w perfectly w ell they have no choice that day but to behave, though there is no g u n that day; and that there is yet anoth er grou p w h o com e to this w ith neither o f those happening to them at the m om ent but in the past h ave been abused in som e w a y that leads them to act as if they w e re cu rren tly being battered by those dealing w ith them . T h at is, fo rm er incest victim s— M S D W O R K IN : Yes. I don't kn o w that those categories are as discrete as you 're m aking them .

D R D IE TZ: T hat's right. T h e y are not m utually exclusive, certainly.

Is there still, a fter all of that, a g ro u p o f w om en w h o se coercion is occurring only in the sense that th ey live in a society in w hich it is expected that w om en w h o w ish to pose this w ay if th ey g et paid en ou gh and are— treated the right w ay; w ould you call that grou p coercion?

M S D W O R K IN : I w ould say that the existence o f that group, co n trary to popular opinion, is the m ost hypothetical, that w e don't kn o w , that w e can't find that group, that w e can find the w o m en w h o are coerced b y the pimps, w e can find the w o m en w h o are battered, w e can find the w o m en w h o are sexually abused, but w om en w h o have a series o f choices that m ake sense, and choose pornography, those w o m en are not easy to find.

D R D IE T Z: If a w om an chose to com e to this C om m ission and say I chose to pose and I enjoyed it and it's the best thing I ever did, w ould yo u think she's lying to us?

M S D W O R K IN : H avin g talked to m an y w o m en w h o h ave com e b efore m an y gro u p s saying that, and havin g talked to them in private, it has n ever yet happened that th ere hasn't been som e form o f sexual abu se that has been m ajor in w h a t pushed her one w a y or an o th er into the industry. I h ave n ever en cou n tered it. T h a t certain ly doesn't m ean that it doesn't exist, bu t m y question is, I k n o w William Blake found all the w orld in a grain o f sand, but I think w h en yo u look at this situation, w e have to deal w ith po rn ograp h y as a real system of coercion that operates both in term s o f physical coercion and econom ic vulnerability.

D R D IE T Z: O n e last question. Y o u h ave talked to us a lot about w o m en and the exploitation and tortu re o f w o m en . W h at about p o rn ograp h y depicting m en? W h at do y o u think about that?

M S D W O R K IN : I h ave also talked to you about the rape o f m en in prisons. I think fem inists are v e ry concerned about rape w h e re v e r w e find it, and I think th at the exploitation o f m en in po rn ograp h y is a serious problem fo r y o u n g m en, fo r m en w h o are ru n a w a ys, fo r m en w h o are dispossessed in som e sense fro m society; b u t m en w h o don't die in it g et o u t o f it, usually.

It doesn't becom e a w a y o f life fo r m en in the sam e w a y that it does fo r w o m en . It's not a total dead end w ith no o th er options ever; and fo r w o m en that is w h a t it tends to be.

I th in k that in M inneapolis, in o u r hearin gs that w e had th ere arou nd th e civil rights legislation, w e had a grea t deal o f testim on y ab o u t th e use o f all-m ale p o rn o g rap h y in h o m o sexu al battery; I believe that that is real, that that is tru e, th at u nd er civil righ ts legislation, m en w h o are battered in that w a y m u st h ave a righ t to sue.

I th in k that p o rn og rap h y also has trem en d o u s im plications fo r the civil statu s o f black m en in this co u n try , w h o se constan t, co n stan t use as rapists in the p o rn o g rap h y is v e ry tied to th eir lo w civil statu s historically in this co u n try . I thin k that that m atters. So I th in k th e im plications fo r m en are v e ry im portant.

C H A I R M A N H U D S O N : M rs Tilton.

M S T IL T O N : Let m e also ask D r D ietz's question. Y o u m ention ed th at th ere are sn u ff film s. A re y o u a w a re o f specific sn u ff film s? H ave y o u seen th em ? C a n y o u g iv e us m ore in form ation ?

M S D W O R K IN : I will give you the inform ation that I can give you on them .

N o, I have never seen them . I hope never to. W e kn o w of a conviction in California; it's the D ouglas and H ernandez case of tw o m en w h o w ere m aking a sn u ff film. O f course th ey w ere convicted for m urder. T h ey had tried to make a sn u ff film previously and had, in quotes, been "entrapped" by a fem ale police officer.

T h ey w ere then let g o and then they tried again and succeeded in com m itting a m urder and filming it.

W e have inform ation that right n o w sn u ff films are selling in the Las V egas area— a print costs $2500 to $3000— and som e places are being screened for $250 a seat.

W e have inform ation from prostitutes in one part of the cou ntry that th ey are being forced to w atch sn u ff films before then being forced to engage in heavily sadom asochistic acts. T h e y are terrified.

W e have inform ation on the survivalist from C alaveras C o u n ty, the m an w h o kept all these w om en as slaves and filmed his torture and his killing o f them and made films of that.

We have inform ation on som ething, and I hope you will excuse me but I will just sim ply use the language, called skull fucking, which apparently w as b rou gh t back from V iet N am , and those are films in w hich a w om an is killed and the orifices in her head are penetrated w ith a m an's penis, her eyes and h er m outh and so on.

T h e inform ation com es from w om en w h o have seen the films and escaped.

O n e o f the problem s that w e have in com m unicating w ith law en forcem en t people is w e alw ays g et the inform ation first, w h eth er it's about rape or m urder or an ythin g else. W e are seldom believed.

W e are afraid o f exposing w o m en w h o are already in enough jeopardy to a male legal system that will not give them either credibility or protection, so w e h ave a great deal of evidence that w ou ld not hold up in the sphere o f social policy as evidence. A nd I suppose until w e can bring you a film, you will not believe that it exists.

M S T IL T O N : A lon g that, do you w a n t to ask a question n o w ?

D R D IE T Z: I just w a n t to say that the C om m ission is aw are o f cases in w h ich o ffen d ers fo r their o w n purposes h ave m ade such things,

and that it m ay be the case in C alifornia that they had the notion that there m ight be som e com m ercial m erit to w h a t th ey w e re doing.

But so far, ev ery exam ple that's been offered o f w h a t w as believed to be a sn u ff film, has been a H ollyw ood creation.

M S D W O R K IN : N o, no, there's been one H ollyw ood creation.

D R D IE T Z : H ollyw ood's film Snuff, the G eo rg e C . Scott film and, o f cou rse, m an y X-rated th in gs could be considered that if an yon e actually died. B ut H ollyw ood, as far as w e 'v e heard, is the source o f that notion. N o w , life m ay be beginn in g to im itate art and it w ould be v e ry valuable if w e can learn o f a n yth in g th at tru ly does exist, especially if it predated the H o llyw o o d — M S D W O R K IN : T h e initial public inform ation about sn u ff film s w as m ade by a policem an in 19 7 5, before the fraud u len t sn u ff film w a s distributed on the m arket, and h e said that the film s w e re being im ported from Sou th A m erica. It w a s because o f the n ew sp ap er co ve ra ge o f his testim on y, as I understand it— and I h a ve done som e in vestigatin g o f it— th at the w o n d erfu l person w h o m ade and distributed th e frau d u len t sn u ff film g o t the idea to do it. H e sim ply capitalized on w h a t he had learned ab o u t it in the n ew sp ap ers and took w h a t had been an old film and put a n e w ending on it that resem bled th e film he had read about.

But that original inform ation w a s fro m the police, and I think that g e ttin g — I understan d th at nobod y y e t has fo u n d and has a copy. I understand that the Justice D ep artm en t tried. M y in form ation com es fro m a journalist, w h o se sou rces I tru st, th at such film s exist, fro m w o m en w h o h ave seen th em , w h o m I believe, w h o m no law en fo rce m en t official w ou ld , that the film s exist, that th ey h ave seen them . A n d so far, all that I could tell y o u is that it doesn't m ean w e w o n 't be w ro n g , but so far w e h ave said b a ttery exists and th e FBI has said it doesn't, and w e h ave been right. A n d w e 'v e said rape exists and law -e n fo rcem en t people h a ve said, no; and w e h ave been right. A n d w e said incest is rife in this co u n try and law -en fo rcem e n t people first said no, and w e w e re right. O u r big secret is that w e listen to the people to w h o m it happens. A n d that's w h a t w e are doing h ere.

M S T IL T O N : W hile w e are on th e subject o f u n p ro v a b le o r proposed crim es w ith o u t evidence, are you , in y o u r w o rk w ith p rostitu tes and

victim s of pornography, so to speak, finding that these w om en are relating stories involving m ore extrem e types o f sexual abuse as children? D o you find any evidence of their involvem ent in sex rings, ritualistic torture, the kinds o f cases that seem to be cropping up th rou gh ou t the cou n try for w hich there is no evidence, in term s of the picture?

M S D W O R K IN : W hat I found consistently, from w om en w h o have talked to me, is that there are sex rings in com m unities made up of people w h o are outstanding m em bers of those com m unities. T h ey exist not for profit. T h e y all involve pornography and the trading of the pornography of the children as well as the trading o f the children.

T h e y all involve som e form of m aim ing of the children from cutting them up, physically injuring them ve ry badly. T h e y appear to be extrem ely sadistic. T h at's the inform ation that I have on that.

M S T IL T O N : And that inform ation you are receiving indicates pictures w ere taken in the process?

M S D W O R K IN : Pictures— in ev ery case, pictures are part of the sex.

O n e o f the things that is so interesting, even about the adult pornography that is n o w being produced, is that m aking por­ n ography itself is presented as a sex act in the pornography that is alm ost the equivalent o f rape. It's an act o f total violation and in the course o f it, the person discovers that that is part o f their sexual gratification.

M ay I just add one m ore point?

M S T IL T O N : Sure.

M S D W O R K IN : This is going back to the sn u ff films. T h at is, as I understand it, because w e did a great deal o f w o rk around Snuff w h en the fraudulent film w a s distributed, if any of those films that you k n o w have existed, the ones w h ere the m urderers have made them them selves, cam e on the com m ercial porn ography m arket, th ey w ou ld be protected speech.

T h at, at least, is the position that the District A tto rn e y of N e w Y o rk C ity took, that as long as the person w h o did the film w as convicted o f the m urder, that w as the crim e, and the film itself w ould be protected speech. I think it is v e ry im portant to think about that in term s o f w h a t kind o f social policy recom m endations you m ake.

M S T IL T O N : I also w anted to co m m en t on the exam ples that you provide w h ich, in the m ajority, are ex tre m e cases, and w ould involve a crim e. I am concerned about those that w ou ld be w orried that victim s m ight lose certain protections, if the obscenity law s w e re not enforced, but rather the responsibility fo r taking action w ou ld rest w ith the victim . Is there not a risk that w e are n o w placing responsibility on the victim s to take action, rath er than the general direction o f taking action on beh alf o f th e victim s because th ey are, in fact, victim s and should not be responsible fo r the consequences to the victim ?

M S D W O R K IN : T h a n k y o u v e ry m uch fo r that question. I think that that g o es to the h eart o f the dilem m a, w h ich is that the state has en tirely abdicated its responsibility to the people th at w e are talking about, and m ost civil rights law in fact is based on the state's abdication o f responsibility fo r assurin g hu m an righ ts fo r discrete gro u p s o f people, based on color o r based on sex.

A n d it seem s to m e that obscenity law in and o f itself has the flaw s th at I said, and it's not go in g to help people w h o have been victim ized.

B ut in addition, the indifferen ce o f th e legal establishm ent to crim es o f violence against w o m en is sim ply too deeply in place. W e are too invisible. It is alw ays business as usual w h en w e com e before a co u rt because o f a giv en assault; and so w h a t w e need is som e n e w lan gu age based on som e n e w th eo ry to g ive u s real visibility and real presence inside this legal system fo r th e th in gs that really happen to us. B u t I do understan d y o u r concern and I do agree th at it's a fu n dam en tal problem .

M S T IL T O N : T h a n k you.

C H A I R M A N H U D S O N : T h e C o m m issio n is n o w goin g to stand in recess fo r o n e half an h o u r fo r lunch. I w o u ld ask that all persons please clear the co u rtroo m , and th at an y w itn ess w h o is on o u r w itn ess list w h o has n ot as y et reported to the C o m m issio n staff, please do so d u rin g the n ext h alf an hour.

(W hereupon, at 1: 45 p. m., the h earin g w a s recessed, to reco n ven e at 2:1 5 p. m., this sam e d a y . )

Letter from a War Zone 1986

Written at the invitation of feminists at Em m a, Germany's premier feminist magazine, L e tte r fro m a W ar Z o n e has been published in German in E m m a and in Norwegian in K lassek am p en . It has never been published in English before.

is t e r s

S

I

d o n 't

kn ow w h o you are, or h o w m any, but I will tell

you w h at happened to us. W e w e re brave and w e w ere

fools; som e o f us collaborated; I don't kn ow the outcom e. It is late 1986 now , and w e are losing. T h e w a r is m en against w om en; the co u n try is the United States. Here, a w om an is beaten every eighteen seconds: by h er husband or the m an she lives w ith, not by a psychotic stran ger in an alley. Understand: w om en are also beaten by strangers in alleys but that is counted in a different catego ry— gender-neutral assault, crim e in the streets, big-city violence. W om an-beating, the intim ate kind, is the m ost com m only com m itted violent crim e in the cou ntry, according to the FBI, not fem inists. A w om an is raped every three m inutes, nearly half the rapes com m itted by som eone the w om an know s. F orty-fou r percent o f the adult w om en in the United States have been raped at least once. Forty-one percent (in som e studies seven ty-on e percent) o f all rapes are com m itted by tw o or m ore men; so the question is not h o w m any rapes there are, but h o w m an y rapists. T h ere are an estim ated 16000 n ew cases o f fatherd au gh ter incest each year; and in the cu rren t generation of children, th irty-eigh t percent o f girls are sexually m olested. H ere, now , less than eight percent of w o m en have not had som e form o f unw anted sex (from assault to obscene harassm ent) forced on them .

W e keep calling this w a r norm al life. Everyone's ignorant; no one

kn ow s; the m en don't m ean it. In this w ar, the pim ps w h o m ake p o rn ograp h y are the SS, an elite, sadistic, m ilitary, organized van guard.

They

run

an

efficient

and

expanding

system

of

exploitation and abuse in w hich w o m en and children, as low er life form s, are brutalized. T h is year th ey will gro ss $10 billion.

We have been slo w to understand. For fu n th ey g ag us and tie us up as if w e are dead m eat and h ang us from trees and ceilings and door fram es and m eat hooks; bu t m any say the lynched w o m en probably like it and w e don't h ave any right to in terfere w ith them (the w o m en ) having a good tim e. For fu n th ey rape us o r h ave o th e r m en, or som etim es anim als, rape us and film the rapes and sh o w the rapes in m ovie th eatres or publish them in m agazines, and the norm al m en w h o are not pim ps (w ho don't k n o w , don't m ean it) pay m on ey to w atch ; and w e are told th at the pim ps and the norm al m en are free citizens in a free society exercisin g rights and th at w e are prudes because this is sex and real w o m en d on 't mind a little force and the w o m en g et paid a n y w a y so w h a t's the big deal? T h e pim ps and th e norm al m en h ave a co n stitu tio n that says the film ed rapes are "protected speech" o r "free speech. " W ell, it d oesn't actually say th a t— cam eras, a fter all, hadn't been invented yet; but th ey interpret their con stitu tion to protect their fun. T h e y h ave law s and judges that call the w o m en h an gin g fro m th e trees "free speech. " T h e re are film s in w h ich w o m en are urinated on, defecated on, cut, m aim ed, and scholars and politicians call th em "free speech. " T h e politicians, o f cou rse, deplore them . T h e re are p h o to graph s in w h ich w o m en 's breasts are slam m ed in sp ru n g rat trap s— in w h ich th in gs (including knives, gu n s, glass) a re stu ffed in o u r va g in a s— in w h ich w e are g an gbanged, beaten, to rtu red — and journalists and intellectuals say: W ell, th ere is a lot o f violence against w o m en b u t. . . B ut w h a t, prick? But w e run this co u n try , cunt.

If you are goin g to h u rt a w o m an in the U nited States, be su re to take a photograph. T h is will co n firm that the inju ry y o u did to h er expressed a p o in t-o f-view , sacrosanct in a free society. H ey, yo u h ave a rig h t not to like w o m e n in a dem ocracy, m an. In th e v e ry u nlikely ev e n t that the victim can nail you fo r co m m ittin g a crim e o f violence again st her, y o u r p h o to grap h is still co n stitu tio n ally protected, since it com m u n icates so eloq uen tly. T h e w o m an , h er brutalization, the pain, th e hum iliation, h er sm ile— because y o u did fo rce h er to smile, didn't

y o u ? — can be sold forever to millions of normal men (them again) w h o — so the happy theory g o es— are having a "cathartic" experience all o ver her. Its the sam e w ith sn u ff films, by the w ay. Y ou can torture and disem bowel a w om an, ejaculate on her dism em bered u terus, and even if th ey do put you a w a y som eday for m urder (a rath er simple-minded euphem ism ), the film is legally speech. Speech.

In the early days, fem inism w as primitive. If som ething hurt w om en, fem inists w ere against it, not for it. In 1970, radical fem inists forcibly occupied the offices o f the ostensibly radical G ro ve Press because G ro ve published pornography m arketed as sexual liberation and exploited its fem ale em ployees. G ro ve's publisher, an em inent boy-revolutionary,

considered

the

hostile dem onstration

C IA -

inspired. His pristine radicalism did not stop him from calling the ve ry brutal N e w Y ork C ity police and having the w om en physically dragged out and locked up for trespassing on his private property.

A lso in 1970, radical fem inists seized Rat, an underground rag that devoted itself, in the nam e of revolution, to pornography and male chauvinism equally, the only attention gender got on the radical left.

T h e pornographers, w h o think strategically and actually do k n o w w h a t th ey are doing, w e re quick to react. "T h ese chicks are our natural en em y, " w ro te H ugh H efner in a secret m em o leaked to fem inists by secretaries at Playboy. "It is tim e w e do battle w ith t h e m . . . W hat I w an t is a devastating piece that takes the militant fem inists apart. " W hat he got w ere huge, raucous dem onstrations at Playboy C lu bs in big cities.

A ctivism

against

porn ography

continued,

organized

locally,

ignored by the media but an intrinsic part of the fem inist resistance to rape. G roups called W om en A gain st Violence A gain st W om en form ed independently in m any cities. Pornography w as understood by fem inists (w ithout a n y k n o w n exception) as w om an-hating, violent, rapist. Robin M organ pinpointed porn ograp h y as the theory, rape as the practice. Susan Brow nm iller, later a fou nd er o f the im m en sely influential W om en A gain st P ornography, saw p or­ n o grap h y as w om an -h ating propaganda that prom oted rape. T h ese insights w e re not banal to fem inists w h o w e re beginning to com prehend the gynocidal and terrorist im plications o f rape for all w om en . T h ese w e re emerging political insights, n ot leam ed -by-rote slogans.

Som etim e in 1975, new spapers in C h ica go and N ew Y o rk C ity revealed the existence of sn u ff films. Police d etectives, tryin g to track d o w n distribution n etw o rk s, said that prostitutes, probably in C en tra l A m erica, w e re being tortured , slo w ly dism em bered, then killed, fo r the cam era. Prints o f the film s w ere being sold by organized crim e to private p o rn ograph y collectors in the U nited States.

In February 1976, a day o r tw o before Susan B. A n th o n y 's birthday, a sn azzy, first-ru n m ovie h o u se in T im es Square sh ow ed w h a t purported to be a real sn u ff film. T h e m arquee tow ered above the vast T im es Square area, the w ord Snuff several feet high in neon, n ext to the title the w o rd s "m ade in S o u th Am erica w h e re life is ch eap. " In the ads that blanketed the su b w ays, a w o m an 's body w as cut in half.

W e felt despair, rage, pain, grief. W e picketed ev ery night. It rained ev e ry night. W e m arched round and rou n d in small circles. W e w atch ed m en take w o m en in on dates. W e w atch ed the w o m en com e o u t, physically sick, and still g o h o m e w ith the m en. W e leafletted. W e scream ed

o u t o f control on

street corners. T h e re w a s som e

vandalism : not en o u g h to close it d ow n . W e tried to g et the police to close it dow n. W e tried to g et the D istrict A tto rn e y to close it d ow n .

Y o u h ave no idea w h a t respect those g u y s h a ve fo r free speech.

T h e pim p w h o distributed th e film w o u ld com e to w atch th e picket line and laugh at us. M en w h o w e n t in laughed at us. M en w h o w alked b y laughed at us. C o lu m n ists in n ew sp apers laughed at us.

T h e A m erican C ivil Liberties U nion ridiculed us th ro u gh variou s sp okesm en (in those days, th ey used m en). T h e police did m ore than laugh at us. T h e y form ed a barricade w ith their bodies, gu n s, and n igh tsticks— to p rotect the film fro m w o m en . O n e th re w m e in fro n t o f an on com in g car. T h re e p rotesto rs w e re arrested and locked up fo r using obscene lan gu age to the th eatre m an ager. U nder the United States C o n stitu tio n , obscene lan gu age is not speech. U nderstand: it is not that obscene lan gu age is u n protected speech; it is not considered speech at all. T h e protesto rs, talking, used obscene lan gu age th at w a s n ot speech; the m aim ing in the sn u ff film , the knife eviscerating th e w o m an , w as speech. All this w e had to learn.

W e learned a lot, o f course. Life m ay be cheap, but k n o w led ge n e ver is. W e learned th at th e police protect p ro p erty and th at p o rn o g rap h y is p rop erty. W e learned that the civil liberties people didn't g iv e a

dam n, m y dear: a w om an's m urder, filmed to bring on orgasm , w as speech, and th ey didn't even mind (these w ere the days before they learned that th ey had to say it w as bad to hurt w om en). T h e A C L U did not have a crisis of conscience. T h e District A tto rn ey w en t so far as to find a w om an he claimed w as "the actress" in the film to sh o w she w as alive. He held a press conference. He said that the only law the film broke w as the law against fraud. He virtually challenged us to try to get the pimps on fraud, w hile m aking clear that if the film had been real, no United States law w ould have been broken because the m urder w ould have occurred elsew here. So w e learned that. D u ring the time Snuff show ed in N ew Y o rk C ity, the bodies of several w om en, hacked to pieces, w ere found in the East R iver and several prostitutes w ere decapitated. W e also learned that.

W hen w e started protesting Snuff, so-called fem inist law yers, m any still leftists at heart, w ere on our side: no w om an could sit this one out. W e w atched the radical boy law yers pressure, threaten, ridicule, insult, and intim idate them ; and they did abandon us. T h e y w en t home. T h e y n ever cam e back. W e saw them learn to love free speech above w om en. H aving hardened their radical little hearts to Snuff, w h a t could ev er m ake them put w om en first again?

T h ere w ere great events. In N ovem b er 1978, the first fem inist conference on pornography w as held in San Francisco. It culm inated in the co u n try's first Take Back the N ight M arch: well o ver 3000 w o m en shut d ow n San Francisco's pornography district for one night. In O cto b er 1979, o ver 5000 w o m en and m en m arched on T im es Square. O n e docum en tary o f the m arch sh o w s a man w h o had com e to T im es Square to bu y sex looking at the sea of w om en extend ing tw e n ty city blocks and saying, bew ildered and dismayed: "I can't find one fucking w o m an . " In 1980, Linda M archiano published Ordeal. W orld-fam ous as Linda Lovelace, the porn-queen e x tra 足 ordinaire of Deep Throat, M archiano revealed that she had been forced into prostitution and porn ograph y by bru te terrorism . G ang-raped, beaten, kept in sexual slavery by her pimp/husband (who had legal rights o ver her as h er husband), forced to have intercourse w ith a dog for a film, subjected to a sustained sadism rarely found by A m n esty International w ith regard to political prisoners, she dared to survive, escape, and expose the m en w h o had sexually used her (including Playboy's H ugh H efn er and Screw's A1 Goldstein). T h e w orld o f norm al

m en (the consum ers) did not believe her; th ey believed Deep Throat.

Fem inists did believe her. T o d a y M arch iano is a stron g fem inist figh tin g porn ograph y.

In 1980, w h en I read O rdeal, I understood from it that ev ery civil right protected by law in this co u n try had been broken on L in das prostituted body. I began to see gan g rape, m arital rape and battery, prostitution, and o th er fo rm s o f sexual abuse as civil righ ts violations w h ich , in porn ograp hy, w e re system atic and intrinsic (the p o r­ n o grap h y could not exist w ith o u t them ). T h e porn ograph ers, it w as clear, violated th e civil rights o f w o m en m uch as the K u K lux K lan in this co u n try had violated th e civil righ ts o f blacks. T h e p orn ograph ers w e re dom estic terro rists determ ined to en force, th ro u gh violence, an in ferior status on people born fem ale. T h e second-class statu s of w o m en itself w a s constru cted th ro u gh sexual abuse; and the nam e of the w h o le system o f fem ale subordination w as pornography— m e n s orgasm and sexual pleasure sy n o n ym o u s w ith w o m e n s sexually explicit inequality. Either w e w e re hu m an , equal, citizens, in w h ich case the porn ograp h ers could n ot do to us w h a t th e y did w ith im p u n ity and, fran kly, constitu tional protection; or w e w e re inferior, not protected as equal persons b y law , and so the pim ps could b ru talize us, th e norm al m en could h ave a good tim e, the pim ps and th eir la w yers and the norm al m en could call it free speech, and w e could live in hell. Either the porn ograp h ers and the po rn ograp h y did violate the civil righ ts o f w o m en , or w o m en had no righ ts o f equality.

I asked C a th a rin e A . M acK in n o n , w h o had pioneered sexual harassm ent litigation, if w e could m ou n t a civil righ ts suit in Linda's behalf. K itty w o rk ed w ith m e, G loria Steinem (an early and brave cham pion o f Linda), and several la w y e rs fo r w ell o ve r a y e a r to co n stru ct a civil righ ts suit. It could not, finally, be b rou gh t, because the sta tu te o f lim itations on e v e ry a tro city com m itted against Linda had expired; and th ere w a s no law against sh o w in g or profiting from the film s she w a s coerced in to m aking. K itty and I w e re despondent; G loria said o u r day w o u ld com e. It did— in M inneapolis on D ecem ber 30, 1983, w h en the C ity C o u n cil passed the first h u m an righ ts legislation ev er to reco gn ize p o rn o g rap h y as a violation o f th e civil righ ts o f all w o m en . In M inneapolis, a politically p rogressive city, p o rn og rap h y had been attacked as a class issue fo r m an y years.

Politicians cynically zoned adult b o ok stores into poor and black areas

o f the city. Violence against the already disenfranchised w om en and children increased m assively; and the neighborhoods experienced econom ic devastation as legitim ate businesses m oved elsew here. T h e civil rights legislation w as passed in M inneapolis because poor people, people o f color (especially N ative Am ericans and blacks), and fem inists dem anded justice.

But first, understand this. Since 1970, but especially a fter Snuff, fem inist confrontations w ith pornographers had been head-on: militant, aggressive, dangerous, defiant. We had thousands of dem onstrations. Som e w e re inside theatres w here, fo r instance, fem inists in the audience w ould scream like hell w h en a w om an w as being h u rt on the screen. Feminists w ere physically dragged from the theatres by police w h o found the celluloid scream s to be speech and th e fem in ist scream s to be disturbing the peace. Banners w e re unfurled in fro n t o f ongoin g films. Blood w a s poured on m agazines and sex paraphernalia designed to hu rt w om en. Civil disobedience, sit-ins, destruction o f m agazines and property, photographing consum ers, as w ell as picketing, leafletting, letter-w riting, and debating in public forum s, h ave all been engaged in over all these years w ith ou t respite.

W om en h ave been arrested repeatedly: the police protecting, alw ays, the pornographers. In one jury trial, three w om en , charged w ith tw o felonies and one m isdem eanor fo r pouring blood o ver pornography, said that th ey w ere acting to p revent a g reater harm — rape; they also said th at the blood w a s already there, th ey w e re just m aking it visible.

T h e y w e re acquitted w h en the jury heard testim ony about the actual use o f porn ography in rape and incest from the victims: a raped w om an; an incestuously abused teenager.

So understand this too: feminism works; at least prim itive fem inism w orks. W e used militant activism to d efy and to try to d estroy the m en w h o exist to h u rt w o m en , that is, the pimps w h o m ake porn ography. W e w anted to d estro y — not just put som e polite limits on but destroy— their p o w er to h u rt us; and millions o f w o m en , each alone at first, on e at a tim e, began to rem em ber, or understand, or find w o rd s fo r h o w she h erself had been h u rt by porn ography, w h at had happened to h er because o f it. B efore fem inists took on the porn ographers, each w om an , as alw ays, had th o u g h t that on ly she had been abused in, w ith , o r because o f pornography. Each w om an lived in isolation, fear, sham e. T e rro r creates silence. Each w om an

had lived in unbreachable silence. Each w o m an had been deeply h u rt by the rape, the incest, the battery; but so m eth in g m ore had happened too, and th ere w a s no nam e fo r it and no description of it.

O n ce

the

role

of

p o rn ograp h y

in

creating

sexual

abuse

w as

exposed — rape by rape, beating by beating, victim by victim — our understanding o f the n atu re o f sexual abuse itself changed. T o talk about rape alone, o r b attery alone, or incest alone, w a s not to talk about th e totality o f h o w the w o m en had been violated. Rape or w ife beating or prostitution o r incest w e re not discrete or free-standing phenom ena. W e had th ou gh t: som e m en rape; som e m en batter; som e m en fuck little girls. W e had accepted an inert m odel o f m ale sexuality: m en h ave fetishes; the w o m en m u st a lw ays be blond, fo r instance; the act that brings on orgasm m u st a lw ays be the sam e. But abu se created

by

p o rn ograp h y

w as d ifferen t:

th e abuse w a s

m ultifaceted, com plex; th e violations o f each individual w o m an w e re m an y and interconnected; the sadism w a s exceptionally dynam ic. W e fou n d that w h en p o rn o g rap h y created sexu al abuse, m en learned a n y n e w tricks the p o rn ograph ers had to teach. W e learned th at a n yth in g th at h u rt o r hum iliated w o m en could be sex fo r m en w h o used porn ograph y; and m ale sexu al practice w o u ld change dram atically to accom m odate violations and d egradation s prom oted by the p o r­ nograp hy. W e fo u n d th at sexual abu ses in a w o m an 's life w e re intricately and co m plexly conn ected w h e n po rn ograp h y w a s a factor: p o rn ograp h y w a s used to accom plish incest and then the child w o u ld be used to m ake porn ograph y; the p o rn ograp h y-co n su m in g husband w o u ld not just beat his w ife bu t w o u ld tie her, h ang her, tortu re her, fo rce

h er

in to

prostitution,

and

film

h er

fo r

porn ograp h y;

p o rn ograp h y used in g an g rape m eant that the g an g rape w as enacted according to an already existin g script, the sadism o f the g an g rape en h an ced by th e co n trib u tio n s o f the porn ograph ers. T h e forced film ing o f forced sex becam e a n e w sexu al violation o f w o m en . In sexu al

term s,

p o rn o g rap h y

created

fo r

w o m en

and

children

co n cen tration cam p conditions. T h is is not h yperbole.

O n e psych ologist told the M inneapolis C ity C o u n cil about th ree cases in volvin g p o rn o g rap h y used as "recipe books": "P resen tly or recen tly I h a ve w o rk ed w ith clients w h o h a ve been sodom ized by broo m handles, forced to h ave sex w ith o ver 20 dogs in th e back seat o f th eir car, tied up and then electrocu ted on their genitals. T h e s e are

children [all] in the ages o f 14 to I S . . . w h ere the perpetrator has read the m anuals and m anuscripts at night and used these as recipe books b y day o r had the pornography present at the time of the sexual violence. " A social w o rk er w h o w o rks exclusively w ith adolescent fem ale prostitutes testified: "I can say alm ost categorically never have I had a client w h o has not been exposed to prostitution through por­ n o g r a p h y ... For som e you n g w om en that m eans that they are sh o w n pornography, either films, videotapes, or pictures as this is h o w you do it#alm ost as a training m anual in h o w to perform acts of prostitution.. . . In addition, out on the street w h en a you n g w om an is [w orkingl, m any of her tricks or custom ers will com e up to her with little pieces o f paper, pictures that w ere torn from a m agazine and say, I w a n t th is__ it is like a mail order catalogue of sex acts, and that is w h a t she is expected to p erfo rm —

A n o th er aspect that plays a big

part in m y w o r k . . . is that on m any occasions m y clients are multi, m any rape victim s. T h ese rapes are often either taped or have ph otograph s taken o f the event. T h e you n g w om an w h en she tries to escape [is blackmailed]."

A fo rm er prostitute, testifying on behalf o f a grou p o f form er p rostitutes afraid of exposure, confirm ed: "[W ]e w ere all introduced to prostitution throu gh porn ography, there w e re no exceptions in o u r group, and w e w ere all under 18. " E veryth in g done to w om en in porn ograph y w as done to these y o u n g prostitutes by the normal m en.

To

them

the

prostitutes

w ere

syn on ym ous

w ith

the

porn ography but so w ere all w om en , including w iv es and daughters.

T h e abuses o f prostitutes w ere not qualitatively d ifferent from the abuses o f o th er w om en. O u t o f a com pendium o f pain, this is one incident: "[A] w om an m et a m an in a hotel room in the 5th Ward.

W hen she g o t there she w as tied up w hile sitting on a chair nude. She w a s gagged and left alone in the dark for w h a t she believed to be an h our. T h e m an returned w ith tw o o th er m en. T h e y burned her w ith cigarettes and attached nipple clips to her breasts. T h e y had m an y S and M m agazines w ith them and show ed h er m any pictures of w o m en appearing to consent, enjoy, and en courage this abuse. She w as held fo r 12 hours, continuously raped and beaten. She w as paid $50 or about $2. 33 per h o u r. " Racist violation is actively prom oted in pornography; and the abuse

has porn ography's distinctive d yn am ic— an annihilating sadism, the brutality and con tem pt taken w holesale from the p o rn ograph y itself.

T h e pornographic video gam e "C u ste r's R ev en g e" generated m an y gan g rapes o f N ative A m erican w o m en . In the gam e, m en try to capture a "sq u a w . " tie h er to a tree, and rape her. In the sexually explicit gam e, the penis goes in and o ut, in and out. O n e victim o f the "g am e" said: "W h en I w a s first asked to testify I resisted som e because the m em ories are so painful and so recent. I am here because o f m y fo u r-year-old d au g h ter and o th er Indian ch ild ren __ I w a s attacked by tw o w h ite m en and fro m the beginn in g th ey let me k n o w th ey hated m y p e o p le . . . A n d th e y let m e k n o w th at the rape of a 'sq u a w ' b y w h ite m en w as practically honored by w h ite society. In fact, it had been m ade into a video gam e called 'C u ste r's Last Stand' [sic]. T h e y held m e d ow n and as one w a s ru n n in g the tip o f his knife across m y face and throat h e said, 'D o you w a n t to play C u ste r's Last Stand? It's g rea t, y o u lose bu t yo u don 't care, do you ? Y o u like a little pain, don't you, sq u a w ? ' T h e y both laughed and then he said, 'T h e re is a lot of cock in C u ste r's Last Stand. Y o u should be g ra tefu l, sq uaw , that AllA m erican boys like us w a n t you . M ayb e w e will tie you to a tree and start a fire around y o u / " T h e sam e sadistic in ten sity and arrogance is eviden t in this p o rn ograp h y-gen erated g an g rape of a thirteen -year-old girl. T h re e deer h u n ters, in the w o o d s, looking at p o rn o g rap h y m agazines, looked up and sa w th e blond child. "T h ere's a live o n e, " one said. T h e th ree h u n ters chased th e child, gan g-raped her, pistol-w hipped her breasts, all the w h ile calling h er nam es from the p o rn ograp h y m agazines scattered at th eir cam p site— G olden G irl, Little G odiva, and so on. "A ll th ree o f them had h u n tin g rifles. T h e y , tw o m en held their g u n s at m y head and the first m an hit m y breast w ith his rifle and th e y continu ed to laugh. A n d then the first m an raped m e and w h e n he w a s finished th ey started m akin g jokes about h o w I w a s a virgin. . . T h e second m an then raped m e . . . T h e third m an forced his penis into m y m ou th and told m e to do it and I didn't k n o w h o w to do it. I did not k n o w w h a t I w a s supposed to be d o in g __ one o f the m en pulled the trig ger on his g u n so I tried harder. T h en w h en he had an erection , he raped me. T h e y co n tin u ed to m ake jokes about h o w lucky th ey w e re to h ave found me w h en th ey did and th ey m ade jokes abo ut being a virgin. T h e y started. . . kicking me and told m e that if I

w anted m ore, I could com e back the n ext d a y .. . I didn't tell anyone that I w as raped until I w as 20 years old." T h ese m en, like the men w h o gang-raped the N ative Am erican w om an, had fun; they w ere playing a gam e.

I am quoting from som e representative but still relatively simple cases. O n ce the role o f pornography in the abuse is exposed, w e no lon ger have just rape o r gan g rape o r child abuse or prostitution. W e have, instead, sustained and intricate sadism w ith no inherent or predictable limits on the kinds o r degrees o f brutality that will be used on w om en or girls. W e have torture; w e have killer-hostility.

P ornography-saturated abuse is specific and recognizable because it is N azism on w o m e n s bodies: the hostility and sadism it generates are carnivorous. Interview ing 200 w orkin g prostitutes in San Francisco, M imi H. Silbert and Ayala M . Pines discovered astonishing patterns o f hostility related to pornography. N o questions w ere asked about pornography. But so m uch inform ation w as given casually by the w o m en about the role o f pornography in assaults on them that Silbert and Pines published the data th ey had stum bled on. O f the 200 w om en, 193 had been raped as adults and 178 had been sexually assaulted as children. T h at is 3 7 1 cases of sexual assault on a population o f 200 w om en. T w e n ty -fo u r percent o f th ose w h o had been raped m entioned that the rapist m ade specific references to porn ography during the rape: "the assailant referred to pornographic m aterials he had seen or read and then insisted that the victim s not only enjoyed the rape but also the extrem e violence. " W hen a victim , in som e cases, told the rapist that she w as a prostitute and w ould perform w h a tever sex act he w anted (to dissuade him from using violence), in all cases the rapists responded in these w ays: "(1) their language becam e m ore abusive, (2) th ey becam e significantly m ore violent, beating and punching the w o m en excessively, often using w eapons they had sh ow n the w o m en , (3) th ey m entioned having seen

prostitu tes in pornographic films, the m ajority of them

m entioning specific pornographic literature, and (4) a fter com pleting the forced vaginal penetration, th ey continued to assault the w om en sexually in w a y s th ey claimed th ey had seen prostitutes en jo y in the pornographic literature they cited. " Exam ples include forced anal penetration w ith a gun , beatings all o ver the body w ith a gun, breaking bones, holding a loaded pistol at the w o m a n s vagina

"insisting this w as the w a y she had died in the film he had se en . " Studies sh o w that b etw een six ty-fiv e and se ven ty -five percent of w o m en in p o rn ograph y w e re sexually abused as children, often incestuously, m an y put into p o rn ograp h y as children. O n e w om an , fo r instance, endured this: "I'm an incest su rvivor, ex -p orn o g ra p h y model and ex-prostitute. M y incest sto ry begins before pre-school and ends m an y years later— this w a s w ith m y fath er. I w a s also m olested by an uncle and a m in is te r . . . m y fa th er forced m e to p erform sexual acts w ith m en at a stag p arty w h en I w a s a teenager. I am from a 'nice' m iddle-class fa m ily . . . M y fa th er is an $80000 a year corp orate execu tive, lay m inister, and alco h o lic. . . M y fa th er w a s m y pim p in porn ography. T h e re w e re 3 occasions fro m ages 9 -1 6 w h e n he forced m e to be a po rn ograp h y m o d e l. . . in N ebraska, so, yes, it does

happen

h ere. " T h is

w o m an

is n o w

a fem inist figh tin g

porn ography. She listens to m en m ostly debate w h e th e r o r not th ere is a n y social h arm connected to p o rn ograp h y. People w a n t experts.

W e h ave experts. So ciety says w e h a ve to prove harm . W e h ave proved harm . W hat w e h ave to prove is that w o m en are h u m an en o u g h fo r harm to m atter. A s one liberal so-called fem inist said recently: "W hat's the harm o f po rn ograp h y? A paper cu t? " T h is w o m an w a s a C o m m issio n er on the so-called M eese C o m m issio n . * Sh e had s p e n t a y ea r o f h er life looking at th e brutalization o f w o m en in p o rn o g rap h y and hearin g the life-stories o f porn ograph y-abused w o m en . W om en w e re not v e ry h u m an to her.

In pain and in privacy, w o m en began to face, then to tell, the tru th , first to them selves, then to o th e rs . N o w , w o m en h ave testified before g o v ern m en ta l bodies, in public m eetings, on radio, on television, in w o rk sh o p s at co n ven tion s o f liberal fem inists w h o find all this so m essy, so declasse, so unfortunate. Especially, the liberal fem inists h ate it th at this m ess o f p o rn o g rap h y — h avin g to do som eth in g about th ese abuses o f w o m e n — m igh t in terfere w ith their quite co m fo rt­ able political alliances w ith all th ose norm al m en, the co n su m ers— w h o also happen to be, w ell, friends. T h e y d on 't w a n t the stink o f this kind o f sexual ab u se— the d ow n -an d -d irty kind fo r fu n and p ro fit— to

Nam ed by the pornographers and their friends after the very right-w ing Edwin M eese, the C om m ission w as actually set up by the m oderate form er A ttorn ey G eneral, William French Smith.

rub o ff on them . Feminism to them m eans getting success, not fighting oppression.

H ere w e are: w eep for us. Society, w ith the acquiescence o f too m any liberal-left fem inists, says that pornographers m ust not be stopped because the freedom o f everyo n e depends on the freedom of the pornographers to exercise speech. T h e w om an gagged and hanging rem ains the speech they exercise. In liberal-left lingo, stopping them is called censorship.

T h e civil rights law — a m odest approach, since it is not the barrel of a g u n — w as passed tw ice in M inneapolis, vetoed tw ice there by the m ayor. In Indianapolis, a m ore conservative city (w here even liberal fem inists are registered Republicans), a n arrow er version w as adopted: narrower m eans that only very violent pornography w as covered by the law. In Indianapolis, pornography w as defined as the graphic, sexually explicit subordination of w om en in pictures and/or w ords that also included rape, pain, hum iliation, penetration by objects or animals, or dism em berm ent. M en, children, and trans­ sexuals used in these w a y s could also use this law. T h e law made pornographers legally and econom ically responsible for the harm they did to w om en. M akers o f pornography, exhibitors, sellers, and distributors could be sued for trafficking in pornography. A n yo n e coerced into pornography could hold the m akers, sellers, distributors, or exhibitors liable for profiting from the coercion and could have the coerced product rem oved from the marketplace. A n yon e forced to w atch porn ography in their hom e, place of w o rk or education, or in public, could sue w h o ev er forces them and any institution that sanctions the force (for instance, a university or an em ployer).

A n y o n e physically assaulted or injured because o f a specific piece of porn ography could sue the porn ographer for m oney dam ages and get the porn ograph y o ff the shelves. U nder this law, porn ograph y is correctly understood and recognized as a practice o f sex dis­ crim ination. P ornography's impact on the status of w om en is to keep all w o m en second-class: targets of aggression and civilly inferior.

T h e United States cou rts have declared the Indianapolis civil rights law unconstitutional. A Federal Appeals C o u rt said that pornography did all the harm to w om en w e said it did— causing us both physical inju ry and civil in feriority— but its success in hu rting us only proved

its p o w er as speech. T h erefo re, it is protected speech. C om pared w ith the pimps, w o m en h ave no rights.

T h e good n e w s is that the p orn ograph ers are in real trouble, and that w e m ade th e trouble. Playboy and Penthouse are both in deep financial trouble. Playboy has been losing subscribers, and thus its advertisin g base, fo r years; both Playboy and Penthouse h ave lost thousan ds o f retail ou tlets fo r th eir w a res in the last fe w years. W e h ave cost them th eir legitim acy.

T h e bad n e w s is that w e are in trouble. T h ere is m uch violence against

us, pornography-inspired.

They

m ake

us, o u r bodies,

p o rn ograp h y in their m agazines, and tell the norm al m en to g et us good. W e are follow ed, attacked, threatened. Bullets w e re sh o t into one fem inist antip orn o grap h y center. Fem inists h ave been harassed o u t o f their hom es, forced to m ove. A n d the porn ograph ers h ave fou nd a bunch o f girls (as the w o m en call them selves) to w o rk for them : not the chickenshit liberals, b u t real collaborators w h o have organized specifically to oppose the civil rights legislation and to p rotect the p o rn ograph ers from o u r political activism — p o rn ograph y should not be a fem inist issue, th ese so-called fem inists say. T h e y say: P orn o grap h y is m isogyn ist b u t. . . T h e but in this case is that it d erep resses us. T h e victim s o f p o rn o g rap h y can testify, and have, th at w h e n m en g et derepressed, w o m en g et hurt. T h ese w o m en say th e y are fem inists. Som e h ave w o rked fo r the defeated Equal R ights A m en d m en t or fo r abortion righ ts or fo r equal pay or fo r lesbian and g a y rights. B ut these days, th ey o rg a n ize to stop us from stopping the porn ographers.

M o st o f the w o m en w h o say th ey are fem inists but w o rk to protect p o rn og rap h y are law yers or academ ics: la w y ers like the ones w h o w alked a w a y fro m

Snuff; academ ics w h o

think prostitu tion is

rom antic, an u nrepressed fem ale sexu ality. B ut w h o e v e r th ey are, w h a te v e r th ey think th ey are doing, the o u tstan d in g fact about them is th at th ey are ign orin g the w o m e n w h o h ave been h u rt in order to help the pim ps w h o do the h u rtin g. T h e y are collaborators, not fem inists.

T h e p o rn ograp h ers m ay w ell d estro y us. T h e violence against u s— in the p o rn ograp h y, in the general m edia, am ong m e n — is escalating

rapidly

and

d an gero u sly.

So m etim es

our

despair is

horrible. W e haven't given in yet. T h ere is a resistance here, a real one. I can't tell you h o w brave and brilliant the resisters are. O r h o w pow erless and hurt. Surely it is clear: the m ost pow erless w om en, the m ost exploited w om en, are the w o m en fighting the pornographers.

O u r m ore privileged sisters prefer not to take sides. It's a nasty fight, all right. Feminism is dying here because so m any w om en w h o say th ey

are

fem inists are collaborators o r cow ards. Feminism is

m agnificent and militant here because the m ost pow erless w om en are putting their lives on the line to co n fro n t the m ost pow erful men for the sake o f all w om en. Be proud of us fo r fighting. Be proud o f us for g ettin g so far. Help us if you can. T h e pornographers will have to stop us. W e will not give in. T h e y kn o w that and n o w so do you.

Love, Andrea D w orkin

EPILOGUE

In th e s e v e n tie s , re b e llio n died a w a y and c ritic ism fell silen t. F e m in ism w a s an e x c e p tio n , b u t th is m o v e m e n t b e g a n m u ch e a r lie r a n d w ill s u r e ly c o n tin u e fo r s e v e r a l d e c a d e s m o re . It is a p ro c e s s th a t b e lo n g s to th e re a lm o f th e " lo n g c o u n t . " A lt h o u g h it h a s lo st s o m e o f its im p e tu s in th e la st f e w y e a rs , it is a p h e n o m e n o n d e s tin e d to e n d u r e a n d to c h a n g e h is to r y .

O c t a v io P a z, One Earth, Four or Five Worlds

Feminism Now 1987

T h e S u n d ay T im e s in London wanted my views on the current state of feminism. Here they are. The newspaper on its own decided to print about onethird of what I wrote. There were a bunch of thoughts from other feminists published too, also cut off at the knees I assume. No one else mentioned sexual violence— or was it edited out? I would like to know. This is my full text, all three paragraphs. This has never been published in the United States in any form.

em inism is in crisis. C h o ices m u st be made. Will the W o m e n s

F

M o v em en t be an authen tic liberation m ovem en t fo r w o m en , a

force fo r the egalitarian redistribution o f p o w er, resources, and opp ortu nity; o r will fem inism be a polite nu d ge tow ard superficial refo rm , m ostly o f m an ners, som etim es o f social or legal codes or practices? Will fem inism be a political m ovem en t that co n fro n ts the p o w e r o f m en o ver w o m en in o rd er to dism antle that pow er; o r will fem inism be a "lifestyle" choice, a post-m odern ist fad, a cyclically noted fashion?

Will fem inism d evo te itself to the elimination, not the containm ent, o f rape, b attery, incest, prostitu tion, and p orn ograph y, the m ost eg re gio u s violations o f w o m en 's h u m an rights; or w ill fem inists settle for n early e v e ry o n e sayin g h o w m uch th e y deplore the violence as the violence co n tin u es u nabated? Will fem inism co n tin u e the difficult and co stly politics o f co n fro n ta tio n — rebellion against the p o w e r o f m en in public and in private, resistance to a statu s q u o th at takes the civil in ferio rity o f w o m en to be natural, sexy, and a piece o f political trivia; o r will an elite o f w o m en , ann ointed to influen ce (not pow er) by the m edia, keep d em on stratin g (so th at the rest o f us will learn)

h o w to talk nice and pretty to m en, h o w to ask them politely and in a fem inine tone to stop exploiting us?

In the United States, there is a fem inist establishm ent, tw en ty years in the m aking, m edia-created and m edia-controlled, that is fairly corrupt, bou ght out by the privilege o f its o w n prom inence.

T h ere is also a grassroots fem inism in ev ery nook and cranny of this vast and diverse co u n try w ith its com plex physical and ethnic geography. T h is grassroots fem inism is strong, brave, militant, enduring, creative, econom ically im poverished, and socially dis足 possessed. A t this point in time, this is the fem inism o f m oral and political significance out o f w hich com es action, truth, and hope. I don't k n o w if this grassroots fem inism will be crushed or if it will prevail. Right n ow , it is an honest resistance m ovem ent. H ere w e h ave neither a revolutionary nor a reform m ovem ent; w e have an organized resistance, som etim es above ground, som etim es under足 grou nd , to male dom inance. I think w e will last a long tim e, at great cost. In a tim e o f political resistance, endurance is everyth ing.

A F T E R W O R D

Still harping on the same subject, you will exclaim— H ow can I avoid it, when most of the struggles of an eventful life have been occasioned by the oppressed state of my sex: we reason deeply, when w e forcibly fepl.

Mary Wollstonecraft, Letters Written During a Short Residence in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark (Letter XIX)

In the long months of confinement, I often thought of how to transmit the pain that a tortured person undergoes. And always I concluded that it was impossible.

It is a pain without points of reference, revelatory symbols, or clues to serve as indicators.

Jacobo Timerman, Prisoner Without a Name, Cell Without a Number

What Battery Really Is

On November 1, 1987, Joel Steinberg, a criminal defense lawyer, beat his illegally adopted daughter, Lisa, 6, into a coma. She died on November 5.

Hedda Nussbaum, who had lived with Steinberg since 1976, was also in the apartment. She had a gangrenous leg from his beatings; her face and body were deformed from his assaults on her. With Lisa lying on the bathroomfloor, Steinberg went out for dinner and drinks. Nussbaum re足 mained in the apartment. When Steinberg came home, he and Nussbaum freebased cocaine. Early the next morning, Lisa stopped breathing, and Nussbaum called 911. She was arrested with Steinberg. She was given immunity for testifying against him. Steinberg had started beating Nuss足 baum in 1978; in that year alone, according to Newsday, she suffered at least ten black eyes. In 1981, he ruptured her spleen. During this time, she worked as a children's book editor at Random House. She was fired in 1982 for missing too much work. Socially speaking, she was disappeared; she got buried alive in torture.

Susan Brownmiller, author of Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape andafounder of Women Against Pornography, beganamediacrusade against Nussbaum. She blamed Nussbaum not only for Lisa's death but also for being battered herself. Hearing Susan take this stand had a dev足 astating impact on me. I began to have flashbacks to when I was battered: to when it was impossible for me to make anyone believe me or help me.

Susan was denying the reality of batteryjust as myfriends, neighbors, and acquaintances had done, just as doctors had done, just as police had done, when I was trying to escape from being physically and mentally tortured.

Flashbacks are different from memories. They take over the conscious mind.

They are like seizures— involuntary, outside time, vivid, almost threedimensional; you can't stoponeonce it starts. You reliveanevent, atrauma, apiece ofyour own history, with aprecision of detail almost beyond belief— the air is the same— you are there and it is happening. I wrote this piece to try to stop the flashbacks.

N e w s w e e k accepted this piecefor publication. Then N e w sw e e k 's law­ yer halted its publication. The lawyer said I had to prove it. I had to have medical records, police records, a written statement from a doctor who had seen the injuries I describe here. I had to corroborate my story. Or I had to publish this anonymously to protect the identity of the batterer; or I couldn't say I had been married— to protect the identity of the batterer; and I had to take out any references to specific injuries unless I could document them, prove them. Outside evidence. Objective proof. I asked N e w s w e e k when the freedom of speech I kept hearing about was going to apply to me; I asked N e w s w e e k when the batterer was going tostophaving control over my life— over what I can say, what I can do.

T h e L os A n g e le s T im es published this article on March 12, 1989. The same week, I readabout the murder of Lisa Bianco. Ms. Bianco was twentynine. She was killed by a batterer, her ex-husband, who was on an eighthour prison furlough. Prison authorities were supposed to tell her if he was ever let out because she knew he would kill her. They didn't. Guess they didn't believe her. "Indeed," T h e N e w Y ork Tim es reported, "prison officials said that on paper Mr. Matheney did not lookas dangerous as Ms. Bianco said he was." She had been preparing to change her identity, go underground, on his releasefrom prison, which was ayear off. Lisa Bianco escaped. She hid, wore disguises, got protection orders, had securityguards escort her to classes at Indiana University. After her divorce, the batterer still showed up to beat her savagely (my own experience as well). Once he kidnapped and raped her. She prosecuted him. He plea-bargained so that the rape and assault charges were dropped to a single count of battery.

Largely because he had also kidnapped their children, he was sentenced to eight years in prison, three of them suspended. She did things right; she was exceptionally brave; she could have proven everything to N e w sw e e k 's lawyer; she's dead. Escaped or captive, you are his prey. Most of us who have been hurt by these men need to hide more than we need proof. We learn fast that the system won't protect us— it only endangers us more— so we hide from the man and from the system— the hospitals, the police, the courts— the places where you get the proof. I still hide. It's not easy

forapublic person, but I do it. I'mamasterof it. I don’t haveanyproof, but I’mstill alive—for now.

Now, about beingawriter: are there other writers in the United States whosefreedomisconstantly threatenedbymurderorbeatings; whose lives are threatened day in, dayout; who risk their lives in publishing a piece likethisone? Thereare: womenhurtbymen, especiallyhusbandsorfathers.

What is Newsweek or PEN or the ACLU doing for writers like us?

Following is thepiece that was accepted, thendeclined, byNewsweek; it was subsequently published in The Los Angeles Times in a slightly differentform.

colleague Susan Brownmiller does not want Hedda Nussbaum to be “exonerated"— something no bat­ tered woman ever is, even if a child has not died. Gangsters are given new identities, houses, bank accounts, and professions when they testify against criminals meaner, bigger, and badder than they are. Rapists and murderers plea-bargain. Drug dealers get immu­ nity. Batterers rarely spend a night in jail; the same goes for pimps.

But Susan feels that Nussbaum should have been prosecuted, and a perception is growing that Nussbaum is responsible legally and morally for the death of Lisa Steinberg.

I don't think Hedda Nussbaum is “innocent." I don't know any innocent adult women; life is harder than that for everyone. But adult women who have been battered are especially not innocent.

Battery is a forced descent into hell and you don't get by in hell by moral goodness. You disintegrate. You don't survive as a discrete personality with a sense of right and wrong. You live in a world of pure pain, in isolation, on the verge of death, in terror; and when you get numb enough not to care whether you live or die you are experiencing the only grace God is going to send your way. Drugs help.

I was battered when I was married, and there are some things I wish people would understand. I thought things had changed, but it is clear from the story of Hedda Nussbaum that nothing much has changed at all.

Your neighbors hear you screaming. They do nothing. The next y fr ie n d

M

and

d a y th ey loo k right th ro u gh yo u . If y o u scream for years th ey w ill look right th ro u gh y o u for years. Y o u r neighbors, friends, and fam 足 ily see the bru ises an d injuries and th ey d o nothing. They^ w ill not intercede. T h e y sen d y o u back. T h e y say it's y o u r fault or that y o u like it or th ey d e n y that it is h a p p en in g at all. Y o u r fam ily believes y o u b elo n g w ith y o u r hu sban d.

If y o u scream an d no one h elp s and no one a ck n o w led ge s it and p eo p le loo k right th ro u gh y o u , y o u begin to feel that y o u d o n 't exist. If y o u existed and y o u scream ed, som eone w o u ld h elp you .

If y o u existed an d y o u w e re visib ly injured, som eone w o u ld h elp you . If y o u existed and y o u asked for help in escapin g, som eone w o u ld h elp you .

W h en y o u g o to the d octor or to the hospital becau se y o u are b a d ly inju red an d th ey w o n 't listen or help y o u or th ey g iv e y o u tranquilizers or threaten to com m it y o u becau se th ey say y o u are disorien ted, paran oid , fan tasizin g, y o u b egin to believe that he can h urt y o u as m u ch as h e w a n ts and no on e w ill help you . W h en the police refu se to h elp y o u , y o u begin to believe that he can h urt or kill y o u and it w ill not m atter becau se y o u d o not exist.

Y o u becom e unable to u se lan gu age becau se it stops m eaning an yth in g. If y o u u se regu lar w o rd s and say y o u h ave been h urt and b y w h o m and y o u p o in t to visible injuries and y o u are treated as if y o u m ad e it u p or as if it d o esn 't m atter or as if it is y o u r fault or as if y o u are stu pid and w o rth less, y o u becom e afraid to try to say a n yth in g. Y o u cann ot talk to a n yon e becau se th ey w ill not h elp y o u an d if y o u talk to them , the m an w h o is battering y o u w ill hurt yo u m ore. O n ce y o u lose lan gu age, y o u r isolation is absolute.

E ventu ally I w a ite d to die. I w a n ted to die. I h o p ed the next beating w o u ld kill m e, or the o n e after that. Wh e n I w o u ld com e to after b ein g b eaten u n co n scio u s, the first feelin g I w o u ld h a ve w a s an o v e rw h e lm in g so rro w that I w a s alive. I w o u ld ask G o d p lease to let m e d ie n o w . M y breasts w e re bu rn ed w ith lit cigarettes. H e beat m y legs w ith a h e a v y w o o d beam so that I co u ld n 't w alk. I w a s p resen t w h e n he d id im m oral th in gs to other people; I w a s p resen t w h e n he h u rt other p eo p le. I d id n 't help them . Judge m e, Susan.

A ju n k ie said he w o u ld g iv e m e a ticket to far a w a y and $ 1, 000

if I w o u ld carry a briefcase th ro u g h cu stom s. I said I w o u ld . I k n e w it had heroin in it, an d I k ep t h o p in g I w o u ld be ca u gh t and sent to jail b ecau se in jail h e c o u ld n 't b eat m e. I h ad b een se xu ally ab u sed in T h e W o m e n 's H o u se o f D eten tio n in N e w Y o rk C ity (arrested for an a n ti-V ie tn a m W ar d em on stration ) so I d id n 't h a ve the idea that jail w a s a frien d ly place. I ju st h o p ed I w o u ld g et five years and for five y ea rs I co u ld sit in a jail cell an d not be hit b y him . In the en d th e ju n k ie d id n 't g iv e m e the briefcase to carry, so I d id n 't g et the $ 1, 000. H e d id k in d ly g iv e m e the ticket. I stole the m o n ey I n e e d e d . E scap e is heroic, isn 't it?

I've b ee n liv in g w ith a k in d an d g en tle m an I lo v e for the last fifteen years. For e ig h t o f th o se yea rs, I w o u ld w a k e u p scream in g in b lin d terror in the n ig h t, n o t k n o w in g w h o I w a s, w h e re I w a s, w h o h e w as; co w e rin g an d sh a k in g . I'm m ore at p eace n o w , bu t I've re fu se d u n til recen tly to h a v e m y b o o k s p u b lish e d in the co u n try w h e re m y fo rm er h u sb a n d liv es, an d I'v e refu sed in vitatio n s to g o th ere— im p ortan t p ro fessio n a l in vitatio n s. O n ce I w e n t th ere in se­ cret for fo u r d a y s to try to face it d o w n . I c o u ld n 't sto p trem blin g an d sw e a tin g in fear; I co u ld b a rely breath e. T h ere isn 't a d a y w h e n I d o n 't feel fear th at I w ill see h im a n d h e w ill h u rt m e.

D eath lo o k s d ifferen t to a w o m a n w h o h as b ee n battered; it seem s n ot n e arly so cru el as life. I'm u p se t b y w h a t I regard as the p h o n y , false m o u rn in g for Lisa S tein b erg — the sen tim en tal an d h yp ocritical m o u rn in g o f a so ciety th at w o u ld n o t really m in d h er b ein g b eaten to d eath o n ce sh e w a s an a d u lt w o m a n . If Lisa h a d n 't d ied , sh e w o u ld be o n W est T en th Street b e in g to rtu red — n o w . W h y w a s it that w e w a n te d h e r to live? So that w h e n the child becam e a w o m a n a n d sh e w a s rap e d or b ea ten or p ro stitu ted w e co u ld lo o k righ t th ro u g h her? It's b a d to h it a girl b efo re sh e 's o f age. It's b a d to torture a girl b efo re sh e 's o f age. T h en s h e 's o f a g e an d , w e ll, it isn 't so bad . B y th en , sh e w a n ts it, sh e lik es it, sh e ch o se it. W h y are a d u lt w o m e n h a ted so m u ch a n d w h y is it all righ t to h u rt us?

T h o se w h o lo v e ch ild ren b u t d o n 't th in k a d u lt w o m e n d e se rv e m u ch p re cise ly b ecau se w e are n o t in n o cen t— w e are u se d a n d co m p ro ­ m ised a n d cu lp a b le — sh o u ld try to rem em b er this: th e o n ly w a y to h a v e h e lp e d Lisa S tein b erg w a s to h a v e h e lp e d H e d d a N u ssb a u m .

But to d o it, y o u w o u ld h a v e h a d to care that an ad u lt w o m a n w a s

b ein g hurt: care e n o u g h to rescue her. A n d there w a s a little b o y there too, rem em ber him , all tied u p and co vered in feces. The o n ly w a y to h a ve sp ared him w a s to rescue H edd a. N o w h e has been tortured and h e d id n ot die. H e w ill g ro w u p to be som e kind o f a m an: w h ich kind ? I w ish there w a s a w a y to take the h u rt from him . There isn 't. Is there a w a y to stop him from becom ing a bat足 terer? Is there?

Copyright Information " T h e L ie. " first p u b lish ed in New W om ens Times, Vol. 5, N o. 21, N o vem b er 9 - 2 2 , 1979. C o p y rig h t © 19 79 by A nd rea D w orkin . "T h e N igh t and D a n g er, " co p yrigh t © 1979 by A n d rea D w orkin . "P o r­ no grap h y and G rie f, " first published in New W om ens Times, Vol. 4, No. 1 1 , D ecem ber 1978. C o p y rig h t © 1978 by A nd rea D w orkin. "T h e P ow er o f W ord s, " first published in Massachusetts Daily Occupied Collegian, Vol. 1, N o. 1, M ay 8, 1978. C o p y rig h t © 1978 by A ndrea D w o rk in . " A W om an W riter and P o rn o g ra p h y , " first published in San Francisco

Review

of

Books,

Vol.

VI,

N o.

5,

M arch -A pril

198 1.

C o p y rig h t © 1980 by A nd rea D w o rk in . "W hose Press? W hose F reedom ? " first published in The W om ens Review of Books, V ol. 1, No. 4, January 1984. C o p y rig h t © 1983 by A n d rea D w o rk in . Preface to O ur Blood, in O ur Blood: Prophecies and Discourses on Sexual Politics (N ew Y ork: Perigee Books, 198 1). C o p y rig h t © 19 8 1 by A ndrea D w orkin .

"N e rv o u s In terv iew , " first published in Chrysalis, N o. 10, M ay 1980.

C o p y rig h t © 1978

by

A n d rea

D w o rk in . "L ovin g

Books: Male/

Fem ale/Fem inist, " first published in Hot Wire, Vol. 1, N o. 3, July 1985.

C o p y rig h t

© 198 5 by A nd rea D w o rk in . "M o u rn in g T en n essee

W illiam s, " first published in slightly changed form u nder the title, "T e n n e ssee W illiam s' L egacy, " in M s., Vol. XI, N o. 12, June 1983.

C o p y rig h t © 1983 by A nd rea D w o rk in . "W uthering Heights, " co p y­ right © 198 7 by A n d rea D w o rk in . "Voyage in the D ark: H ers and O u r s , " co p yrigh t © 198 7 by A nd rea D w o rk in . "A Fem inist Looks at Saudi A rab ia, " co p yrig h t © 1978 by A n d rea D w o rk in . "A Battered W ife S u rv iv e s, " first published u n d er the title, "T h e Bruise T h a t D o esn 't

H eal, "

in

M other

Jones,

V ol.

Ill,

N o.

VI,

July

1978.

C o p y rig h t © 1978 by A n d rea D w o rk in . " A T ru e and C o m m o n p lace S to ry , " co p yrig h t © 1978 by A n d rea D w o rk in . "Biological Superi-

ority: T h e W orld's M ost D angerou s and Deadly Idea. " first published in Heresies No. 6 on Women and Violence, Vol. 2, No. 2, Su m m er 1978.

C o p y rig h t © 19 7 7 by Andrea D w orkin. "Sexual Economics: T h e Terrible T ru th . " first published in slightly abridged form under the title, "Phallic Imperialism: W hy Econom ic R ecovery Will N ot W ork For U s, " in M s., Vol. V , No. 6, D ecem ber 1976. C o p yrig h t © 1976 by A ndrea

D w orkin. "Look, Dick, Look. See Jane Blow It." First

published in New W omens Times, Vol. 5, No. 7, M arch 30, 1979.

C o p y rig h t © 1979 by A ndrea D w orkin . "Feminism: A n A gen d a, " first published in The ABC's of Reading, W inter 1984. C o p yrig h t © 1983 by Andrea D w orkin. "M argaret Papandreou: A n A m erican Feminist in G reece, " first published in M s., Vol. XI, No. 8, February 1983. C o p yrig h t © 1983 by Andrea D w orkin. "I W ant A T w e n ty Four H ou r-T ru ce D uring W hich T h ere Is N o Rape, " originally published under the title, "Talking to M en A bou t Rape, " in Out!, Vol. 2, No. 6, April 1984; then under the cu rren t title in M ., No. 13, Fall 1984. C o p y rig h t © 1984 by A ndrea D w orkin. "Violence A gain st W om en: It Breaks the H eart, A lso the Bones, " first published in the an th olo gy Personally Speaking, edited by Liz Steiner-Scott (Dublin: A ttic Press, 1985). C o p yrig h t © 1984 by Andrea D w orkin. Preface to the

British edition of Right-wing

Women, in Right-wing

Women

(London: T he W om en's Press, 1983). C o p y rig h t © 1983 by Andrea D w orkin . "Pornography: T h e N ew T errorism , " first published under the title, "Pornography: T h e N e w T erro rism ? ", in The Body Politic, No. 45, A u g u st 1978; then published under its real title, w ith ou t the question m ark, in New York University Review of Law and Social Change, Vol. Ill, No. 2, 19 78 -19 79 . C o p y rig h t © 19 7 7 by A ndrea D w orkin.

"W h y P ornography M atters to Fem inists, " first published in Sojourner, Vol. 7, No. 2, O cto b er 1981. C o p y rig h t © 198 1 by Andrea D w orkin.

"P ornography's Part in Sexual V iolence, " first published in abridged form under the title, "T h e Real O b scen ity o f Pornography: It C au ses V io len ce, " in Newsday, Vol. 41, No. 15 1, February 3, 1981; then published in full under the cu rren t title in The Los Angeles Times, M ay 26, 198 1. C o p y rig h t © 198 1 by A ndrea D w orkin . "T h e A C L U : Bait and S w itch , " copyrigh t © 198 1 by Andrea D w orkin . "W h y So-Called Radical M en Love and Need P orn o graph y, " first published under the title, "Fathers, Sons, and the Lust fo r Porn, " in Soho Weekly News, Vol. 4, No. 44, A u g u s t 4-10 , 1977; then published under the curren t title

in Gay Community News, Vol. 6, No. 22, December 23, 1978.

Copyright © 19 7 7 by Andrea Dworkin. 'Tor Men, Freedom of Speech; For Women, Silence Please," first published in the anthology Take Back the night , edited by Laura Lederer (New York: William Morrow and Co., 1980). Copyright © 19 79 by Andrea Dworkin.

"Pornography and Male Supremacy," copyright © 198 1 by Andrea Dworkin. "Women Lawyers and Pornography," originally titled "Remarks on Women and Pornography," copyright © 1980 by Andrea Dworkin. "Silence Means Dissent," first published in Healthsharing, Summer 1984. Copyright © 1984 by Andrea Dworkin. "Against the Male Flood: Censorship, Pornography, and Equality," first published in H arvard Women's la w Journal, Vol. 8, Spring 1985. Copyright © 198 5 by Andrea Dworkin. "Letter from a War Zone," first published in German in Emma, Vol. 6, No. 2, February 1987; also in Norwegian in Klassekampen, 1987. Copyright © 1986 by Andrea Dworkin. "Feminism Now," first published in abridged form under the title, "There's still a long way to go," The Sunday Times, London, June 28, 1987. Copyright © 198 7 by Andrea Dworkin.