What do you think?
Rate this book
Right-Wing Women: The Politics of Domesticated Females
What does the Right offer to women? How does the Right mobilize women? Why is the Right succeeding in opposing women's rights? With the stark precision and forceful passion that characterize all of her work, Andrea Dworkin answers these timely questions. And by providing the first clear analysis of the impact on women of the Right's position on abortion, homosexuality, anti-Semitism, female poverty, and antifeminism, she demonstrates how the Right attempts both to exploit and to quiet women's deepest fears.
254 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1983
About the author
Andrea Dworkin
32 books1,716 followersAndrea Rita Dworkin was an American radical feminist and writer best known for her criticism of pornography, which she argued was linked to rape and other forms of violence against women.
An anti-war activist and anarchist in the late 1960s, Dworkin wrote 10 books on radical feminist theory and practice. During the late 1970s and the 1980s, she gained national fame as a spokeswoman for the feminist anti-pornography movement, and for her writing on pornography and sexuality, particularly in Pornography - Men Possessing Women (1981) and Intercourse (1987), which remain her two most widely known books.
An anti-war activist and anarchist in the late 1960s, Dworkin wrote 10 books on radical feminist theory and practice. During the late 1970s and the 1980s, she gained national fame as a spokeswoman for the feminist anti-pornography movement, and for her writing on pornography and sexuality, particularly in Pornography - Men Possessing Women (1981) and Intercourse (1987), which remain her two most widely known books.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 690 reviews
March 30, 2011
Can I give this book 10 stars? No? Bummer...
One word sums up this book: BRUTAL.
There's a lot of discussion amongst radical feminists about "following a thought to its logical conclusion." This means not stopping when an idea steps on PC toes or becomes uncomfortable - or downright dangerous - either personally or to the sex-class system at large (which obviously BECOMES personally dangerous for individual women.) Dworkin's book is radical - "to the root" - in every single sentence, possibly every single word. I was floored - I think I underlined about 25% of the book. Also, her writing style is dense but totally readable, which I appreciate.
Here's a sample - see if you can stomach it: "...The fate of every individual woman - no matter what her politics, character, values, qualities - is tied to the fate of all women whether she likes it or not. ... Subordinate to men, sexually colonized in a sexual system of dominance and submission, denied rights on the basis of sex, historically chattel, generally considered biologically inferior, confined to sex and reproduction: this is the general description of the social environment in which all women live."
Speak it, sister.
One word sums up this book: BRUTAL.
There's a lot of discussion amongst radical feminists about "following a thought to its logical conclusion." This means not stopping when an idea steps on PC toes or becomes uncomfortable - or downright dangerous - either personally or to the sex-class system at large (which obviously BECOMES personally dangerous for individual women.) Dworkin's book is radical - "to the root" - in every single sentence, possibly every single word. I was floored - I think I underlined about 25% of the book. Also, her writing style is dense but totally readable, which I appreciate.
Here's a sample - see if you can stomach it: "...The fate of every individual woman - no matter what her politics, character, values, qualities - is tied to the fate of all women whether she likes it or not. ... Subordinate to men, sexually colonized in a sexual system of dominance and submission, denied rights on the basis of sex, historically chattel, generally considered biologically inferior, confined to sex and reproduction: this is the general description of the social environment in which all women live."
Speak it, sister.
March 30, 2026
Before he was Prime Minister of Australia, Tony Abbott once said on national television, “I think there does need to be give and take on both sides, and this idea that sex is kind of a woman’s right to absolutely withhold, just as the idea that sex is a man’s right to demand I think are both, they both need to be moderated, so to speak.”
In The Fatal Shore, Hughes says that not every convict was treated as badly as those who were sent to Moreton Bay, but the existence of this extreme was meant as an example to all convicts of what they could expect to experience if they did not abide by the rules.
I couldn’t help thinking of these two ideas while reading this book. The book starts with an introduction that documents some of the criticisms of the book. From reading some of these you’d think that the author hated men and thought all sex between men and women was essentially rape. She doesn’t say this – but she does say that rape in marriage, effectively Tony Abbott’s ‘give and take’ is much more common than we generally assume. Also that what it is to be a woman under patriarchy is defined by forced sex much more than we generally assume.
And this is where the book becomes interesting – because she also says that all women, at some level at least, know that this is the case. That you either trade sex directly for money as in prostitution or you trade sex for security as in marriage – but ultimately, women are defined by sex and the exchange value sex provides.
So, why is this book called Right Wing Women? Well, this is where the book is very interesting. What was particularly interesting was that when asked, these women were all too well aware of the threat that men pose. For them, the exchange of sex for security is seen as their only path to security – even if this is a precarious security even at the best of times. And this is because the chance of violence in marriage is ever present. Physical violence, but also masculine domination in all of its forms. The half-life that this exchanges condemns so many women to is a high price to pay. However, when there are no alternatives, it is an exchange they will defend.
She points out how left wing women were conned in the sexual revolution into believing that they had been liberated – when this liberation often meant men being able to have more sex with more women without any increase in social standing for the women. She says this is part of the reason why right wing women are so strongly opposed to abortion – that it took away the consequences of sex for men, while ripping women’s bodies apart, and devaluing the exchange value and therefore security sex provided in marriage. And pornography provides a similar devaluation – making all women valuable according to an impossible ideal based on male fantasies.
What I found particularly interesting in this was right wing women’s hatred of lesbians. These were seen as being more threatening than men – even though none of them knew of anyone who had been raped or harmed by a lesbian, but virtually all knew of women who had been both by men. At one point in this she describes getting into a discussion with a group of right wing women while standing near a railing. They came closer and closer to her when she was nearly certain they were about to ‘accidentally’ push her over. She was saved by two lesbians who were watching what was happening. The fact she was Jewish and criticising their most cherished beliefs – even while trying to calm the situation – made the whole thing even more dangerous.
There is a part of this where a man says the usual stuff where women should be forced to give birth to children regardless of the circumstances and some are listed. She says what they should have been asked is if their wife was raped, would they agree to bring up the child as its father? I would be very interested to hear how people would answer that. The nightmare that is the US at the moment over the removal of women’s rights to their own bodies shows just how relevant this book remains.
I told a female friend the other day that I was reading this book and that given the author is described as a radical feminist that I’m starting to think I might be one too. A couple of weeks ago I watched Louis Theroux’s Manosphere documentary. Dear god. What sad bastards they all are. And what was obvious throughout was that they really could not be in a relationship with a real woman. The women they were all with were so damaged and all looked like they had stepped out of a porn video. You’d have a better relationship with a sex doll – and effectively, that is what they were having. Her criticism that the life of such women could hardly be worse, despite the ‘security’ having access to these men’s money offered them, was on full display. But then, the men were barely half-human too. And there’s the rub. A life of domination – whether on the basis of sex, race, class – is as poisonous to the soul of the dominator as it is to the dominated. But the consequences are grossly borne by women.
When I’ve written about these issues before, some half-wit male has written things like, I hope you got laid by her for saying this. Which goes quite a long way to proving her point. Over the weekend I read an article about women ‘marrying down’ – that is, women with university degrees who marry men with much less education. Look, I work in a university – I know that having a degree doesn’t really prove you are smart. I’ve know lots of people who never finished high school that I think are more intelligent than people with doctorates. But one of the women said on her first date with her now husband he started talking to her about the conspiracy theories he believed. I couldn’t do that – no matter how good the sex was. The problem women face today, now that there is such a large education gap between the sexes, is that marrying men with less education is becoming almost inevitable. Lois Weis wrote an interesting book called Class Reunion as the second part of her Working Class Without Work where the male high school students couldn’t bring themselves to do what they considered ‘women’s work’ and so continued in crap jobs or no jobs at all. The women from the working class school she’s analysed a decade earlier had often gone on to become nurses or to get a degree. But Bourdieu’s habitus kicks in and working class women are often mostly attracted to working class men. The problem was that these men were now intimidated by these women who knew more than they did, and earned more than they did.
A revolution is needed in gender relations. Unfortunately, at the moment, we appear to be going through a counter-revolution. This book was written a lifetime ago. What might have seemed exaggeration then, or based on ideas that were vanishing as feminism gained ground – seem all too commonplace. As she says at the end of this – it isn’t that women are the holders of all virtue – than can be just as awful as men can be. The point is for us all to claim our common humanity and that is impossible when women are so grossly devalued by our society – where teachers are underpaid because it is seen as a female profession, where our aged care facilities resemble concentration camps because women outlive men, where women in their fifties are likely to live in poverty. The equation between worth as a human and sexual attractiveness needs to be broken.
In The Fatal Shore, Hughes says that not every convict was treated as badly as those who were sent to Moreton Bay, but the existence of this extreme was meant as an example to all convicts of what they could expect to experience if they did not abide by the rules.
I couldn’t help thinking of these two ideas while reading this book. The book starts with an introduction that documents some of the criticisms of the book. From reading some of these you’d think that the author hated men and thought all sex between men and women was essentially rape. She doesn’t say this – but she does say that rape in marriage, effectively Tony Abbott’s ‘give and take’ is much more common than we generally assume. Also that what it is to be a woman under patriarchy is defined by forced sex much more than we generally assume.
And this is where the book becomes interesting – because she also says that all women, at some level at least, know that this is the case. That you either trade sex directly for money as in prostitution or you trade sex for security as in marriage – but ultimately, women are defined by sex and the exchange value sex provides.
So, why is this book called Right Wing Women? Well, this is where the book is very interesting. What was particularly interesting was that when asked, these women were all too well aware of the threat that men pose. For them, the exchange of sex for security is seen as their only path to security – even if this is a precarious security even at the best of times. And this is because the chance of violence in marriage is ever present. Physical violence, but also masculine domination in all of its forms. The half-life that this exchanges condemns so many women to is a high price to pay. However, when there are no alternatives, it is an exchange they will defend.
She points out how left wing women were conned in the sexual revolution into believing that they had been liberated – when this liberation often meant men being able to have more sex with more women without any increase in social standing for the women. She says this is part of the reason why right wing women are so strongly opposed to abortion – that it took away the consequences of sex for men, while ripping women’s bodies apart, and devaluing the exchange value and therefore security sex provided in marriage. And pornography provides a similar devaluation – making all women valuable according to an impossible ideal based on male fantasies.
What I found particularly interesting in this was right wing women’s hatred of lesbians. These were seen as being more threatening than men – even though none of them knew of anyone who had been raped or harmed by a lesbian, but virtually all knew of women who had been both by men. At one point in this she describes getting into a discussion with a group of right wing women while standing near a railing. They came closer and closer to her when she was nearly certain they were about to ‘accidentally’ push her over. She was saved by two lesbians who were watching what was happening. The fact she was Jewish and criticising their most cherished beliefs – even while trying to calm the situation – made the whole thing even more dangerous.
There is a part of this where a man says the usual stuff where women should be forced to give birth to children regardless of the circumstances and some are listed. She says what they should have been asked is if their wife was raped, would they agree to bring up the child as its father? I would be very interested to hear how people would answer that. The nightmare that is the US at the moment over the removal of women’s rights to their own bodies shows just how relevant this book remains.
I told a female friend the other day that I was reading this book and that given the author is described as a radical feminist that I’m starting to think I might be one too. A couple of weeks ago I watched Louis Theroux’s Manosphere documentary. Dear god. What sad bastards they all are. And what was obvious throughout was that they really could not be in a relationship with a real woman. The women they were all with were so damaged and all looked like they had stepped out of a porn video. You’d have a better relationship with a sex doll – and effectively, that is what they were having. Her criticism that the life of such women could hardly be worse, despite the ‘security’ having access to these men’s money offered them, was on full display. But then, the men were barely half-human too. And there’s the rub. A life of domination – whether on the basis of sex, race, class – is as poisonous to the soul of the dominator as it is to the dominated. But the consequences are grossly borne by women.
When I’ve written about these issues before, some half-wit male has written things like, I hope you got laid by her for saying this. Which goes quite a long way to proving her point. Over the weekend I read an article about women ‘marrying down’ – that is, women with university degrees who marry men with much less education. Look, I work in a university – I know that having a degree doesn’t really prove you are smart. I’ve know lots of people who never finished high school that I think are more intelligent than people with doctorates. But one of the women said on her first date with her now husband he started talking to her about the conspiracy theories he believed. I couldn’t do that – no matter how good the sex was. The problem women face today, now that there is such a large education gap between the sexes, is that marrying men with less education is becoming almost inevitable. Lois Weis wrote an interesting book called Class Reunion as the second part of her Working Class Without Work where the male high school students couldn’t bring themselves to do what they considered ‘women’s work’ and so continued in crap jobs or no jobs at all. The women from the working class school she’s analysed a decade earlier had often gone on to become nurses or to get a degree. But Bourdieu’s habitus kicks in and working class women are often mostly attracted to working class men. The problem was that these men were now intimidated by these women who knew more than they did, and earned more than they did.
A revolution is needed in gender relations. Unfortunately, at the moment, we appear to be going through a counter-revolution. This book was written a lifetime ago. What might have seemed exaggeration then, or based on ideas that were vanishing as feminism gained ground – seem all too commonplace. As she says at the end of this – it isn’t that women are the holders of all virtue – than can be just as awful as men can be. The point is for us all to claim our common humanity and that is impossible when women are so grossly devalued by our society – where teachers are underpaid because it is seen as a female profession, where our aged care facilities resemble concentration camps because women outlive men, where women in their fifties are likely to live in poverty. The equation between worth as a human and sexual attractiveness needs to be broken.
November 18, 2025
This book was written more than 40 years ago, and it's very timely. *sigh* While feminism has come a long way and the conversation has evolved, it's still worth pondering Dworkin's ideas, because she was a sharp thinker and a passionate fighter for gender equality. Sure, her fierce style that is frequently blind to nuance tends to be problematic, but it's also true that Dworkin was an angry lesbian who wasn't conventionally attractive, and loud women not considered fuckable are a prime target of the patriarchy - and Dworkin had to face all the might, violence, and cynicism of that system. So let's stand with comrade Dworkin for a second, as she does with right-wing women, because yes, this writer empathizes with women who support a movement that wants to keep women down. Why, you ask? Dworkin argues: "Feminists, from a base of powerlessness, want to destroy that power (she means male power over women); right-wing women, from a base of powerlessness, the same base, accommodate to that power because quite simply they see no way out from under."
That's dire, but there's something to it: There are women aiming to thrive withing the patriarchy, because they don't think it can be dismantled anyway. So Dworkin defines right-wing women as "women who accept the legitimacy of sex hierarchy, male authority, and women as property in any way, no matter what they call themselves." Of course she doesn't think these women are correct, but she does not dismiss them as morally rotten people and rather tries to psychologically understand their motivations. The book starts out with the promise of the ultra-right - to protect women if they play by the rules -, and goes on to show what happened to women who dared to challenge the system, thus illustrating how right-wing women are thinking. Dworkin also depicts the price they are paying, which underlines that the system is designed in a way that it's impossible for a woman to win, no matter whether she resists or submits.
One of her examples is Anita Bryant, a woman who suffered severe abuse by her husband while publicly promoting ultra conservative standpoints. I was also intrigued by Dworkin's analysis of the hippie movement: She claims that sexual liberation, while doing a lot of good for women, also pressured some women into being promiscuous so they wouldn't be called square or bourgeois, thus providing easy access to sex for men and ultimately not fighting, but helping the patriarchy. I've never looked at it like that, but I'm sure that in quite a few cases, there's truth to that. In another chapter, Dworkin argues that right-wing women support marriage because it offers them social protection at the cost of being available to the sexual whims of one man, while they maintain that prostitution needs to be fought because it makes women available to the sexual whims of many men but offers no social protection. This attitude is rooted in fear and desperation, and I've heard quite some 21st century political statements permeated with it.
I applaud Dworkin for trying to understand the thinking of those who oppose her and whom she opposes, because this effort is the only way to build a bridge and find common ground. While I strongly disagree with a lot of Dworkin's viewpoints, this important move towards empathy seems to have been largely lost in third-wave feminism, where many revel in declaring Enemy Feminisms: TERFs, Policewomen, and Girlbosses Against Liberation so they can revel in narcissistic moral superiority. There's nothing better for the patriarchy than women being busy scratching each other's eyes out instead of questioning the status quo together, or at least as jointly as possible.
That's dire, but there's something to it: There are women aiming to thrive withing the patriarchy, because they don't think it can be dismantled anyway. So Dworkin defines right-wing women as "women who accept the legitimacy of sex hierarchy, male authority, and women as property in any way, no matter what they call themselves." Of course she doesn't think these women are correct, but she does not dismiss them as morally rotten people and rather tries to psychologically understand their motivations. The book starts out with the promise of the ultra-right - to protect women if they play by the rules -, and goes on to show what happened to women who dared to challenge the system, thus illustrating how right-wing women are thinking. Dworkin also depicts the price they are paying, which underlines that the system is designed in a way that it's impossible for a woman to win, no matter whether she resists or submits.
One of her examples is Anita Bryant, a woman who suffered severe abuse by her husband while publicly promoting ultra conservative standpoints. I was also intrigued by Dworkin's analysis of the hippie movement: She claims that sexual liberation, while doing a lot of good for women, also pressured some women into being promiscuous so they wouldn't be called square or bourgeois, thus providing easy access to sex for men and ultimately not fighting, but helping the patriarchy. I've never looked at it like that, but I'm sure that in quite a few cases, there's truth to that. In another chapter, Dworkin argues that right-wing women support marriage because it offers them social protection at the cost of being available to the sexual whims of one man, while they maintain that prostitution needs to be fought because it makes women available to the sexual whims of many men but offers no social protection. This attitude is rooted in fear and desperation, and I've heard quite some 21st century political statements permeated with it.
I applaud Dworkin for trying to understand the thinking of those who oppose her and whom she opposes, because this effort is the only way to build a bridge and find common ground. While I strongly disagree with a lot of Dworkin's viewpoints, this important move towards empathy seems to have been largely lost in third-wave feminism, where many revel in declaring Enemy Feminisms: TERFs, Policewomen, and Girlbosses Against Liberation so they can revel in narcissistic moral superiority. There's nothing better for the patriarchy than women being busy scratching each other's eyes out instead of questioning the status quo together, or at least as jointly as possible.
October 15, 2008
i am 64 - this book brought my mother's generation to me in compassionate and world-view-changing ways back when it first came out. Dworkin's respectful and insightful take on the innately sexual politics of conservative women has proved prescient and sadly, all too relevant still.
please click the amazon link for reviews-this book's exploration of the mind-set and politics of right-wing women is still expanding the understanding of those who truly care about all women. That's what Andrea Dworkin was - that's why she saw and named what so many others could not. The compassion at the heart of her vision is a challenge to us all.
please click the amazon link for reviews-this book's exploration of the mind-set and politics of right-wing women is still expanding the understanding of those who truly care about all women. That's what Andrea Dworkin was - that's why she saw and named what so many others could not. The compassion at the heart of her vision is a challenge to us all.
December 26, 2008
Andrea Dworkin gets such a bad rap among (some) feminists and anti-feminists alike that I was slightly wary to actually go out and find one of her books. But, in an attempt to figure out what the majority of my female relatives are thinking, I picked this up. And it was damn worth it.
Firstly...did I agree with her on everything? No. I do not, for instance, consider pornography to be a base cause of anything, or even one of the biggest problems women face in society. I did, however, agree with her on a lot of what she said. Also, there were certainly sections of the book (the "men hate intelligence in women" chapter) which were probably far more applicable a generation or several ago than they are now, though I'm sure there are men today to whom this applies (*coughJohnCarrollconservativescough*).
Oh, and the writing is amazing.
Also, I read this in conjunction with Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards' Manifesta, in which they succinctly explain that no, Dworkin did not believe all sex was rape. While I have yet to read the book which gave way to that myth (Intercourse), this was important to see. I've heard far too many people, feminists and antis alike, saying this. Also, the other "weird thing" about Dworkin which always gets pointed out, her relationship with John Stoltenberg...why do people care so much if she said she was queer but was in love with a (also queer) man? "She said she was a lesbian but married a man" is what is constantly pointed out as why she was a little "crazy," but it's not like there's a law that a person has to declare their sexual orientation and never deviate...it's not like there's a law that people can't sometimes be attracted to people, not genitals. Just a thought.
Firstly...did I agree with her on everything? No. I do not, for instance, consider pornography to be a base cause of anything, or even one of the biggest problems women face in society. I did, however, agree with her on a lot of what she said. Also, there were certainly sections of the book (the "men hate intelligence in women" chapter) which were probably far more applicable a generation or several ago than they are now, though I'm sure there are men today to whom this applies (*coughJohnCarrollconservativescough*).
Oh, and the writing is amazing.
Also, I read this in conjunction with Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards' Manifesta, in which they succinctly explain that no, Dworkin did not believe all sex was rape. While I have yet to read the book which gave way to that myth (Intercourse), this was important to see. I've heard far too many people, feminists and antis alike, saying this. Also, the other "weird thing" about Dworkin which always gets pointed out, her relationship with John Stoltenberg...why do people care so much if she said she was queer but was in love with a (also queer) man? "She said she was a lesbian but married a man" is what is constantly pointed out as why she was a little "crazy," but it's not like there's a law that a person has to declare their sexual orientation and never deviate...it's not like there's a law that people can't sometimes be attracted to people, not genitals. Just a thought.
July 10, 2011
This is not a book that I would recommend to anyone who is critical of radical feminism. There are lots of assertions that are not argued through and most of the book is written in extremes. However, this is a very valuable book for left-wing folks. Dworkin is brutally honest about the chauvanism prevelent in the left, and why the program of the right is more appealing to oppressed women than the program (or rather hodge-podge of ill-defined ideas)of the left. Whether consious or not, the attitude toward sex among the political left is isolating women from their movements. To sum up, I enjoyed it, but as I read, I was thinking about all of the people who I wouldn't dare recommend it to.
Read
July 7, 2022Oh Andrea we're really in it now.
October 7, 2023
It is a thought-provoking, straightforward, and emotionally heavy read. It offers a valuable critique on sex-“freedom”-obsessed left and explains why some women pick right-wing ideology instead. In short, they do it to protect themselves.
Even though I loved the author’s strong opinions and merciless conclusions, she offered too little evidence to support them. Also, it feels partly outdated reading it in 2023—forty years have passed since the book was published. Although many fundamental issues regarding women’s experience have not changed, many laws she criticises did.
Currently, we see more women promoting “traditional values” in both online and political settings. Although extremely harsh in language and beliefs, this book explains why it is the lesser evil of choice for many.
“They know too that the Left has nothing better to offer: leftist men also want wives and whores; leftist men value whores too much and wives too little. Right-wing women are not wrong. They fear that the Left, in stressing impersonal sex and promiscuity as values, will make them more vulnerable to male sexual aggression, and that they will be despised for not liking it. They are not wrong.”
Even though I loved the author’s strong opinions and merciless conclusions, she offered too little evidence to support them. Also, it feels partly outdated reading it in 2023—forty years have passed since the book was published. Although many fundamental issues regarding women’s experience have not changed, many laws she criticises did.
Currently, we see more women promoting “traditional values” in both online and political settings. Although extremely harsh in language and beliefs, this book explains why it is the lesser evil of choice for many.
“They know too that the Left has nothing better to offer: leftist men also want wives and whores; leftist men value whores too much and wives too little. Right-wing women are not wrong. They fear that the Left, in stressing impersonal sex and promiscuity as values, will make them more vulnerable to male sexual aggression, and that they will be despised for not liking it. They are not wrong.”
June 13, 2016
I read this book a couple years ago and it changed my life. Dworkin retains such compassion for all women, even those who fight vehemently against our own rights. Her voice is strong and courageous, and the anger she feels towards the oppression of women is inspiring.
October 4, 2012
This book helped me understand the psychology of right-wing women a little and the theories of Andrea Dworkin a lot. The writing is really, really good and persuasive even if I find Dworkin's ideas a bit... pessimistic. This is a mostly-accessible read that I would recommend to someone who wanted to read about radical feminism.
July 12, 2020
AAAAAH !!! Enfin fini !!! Plus de 5 mois pour venir à bout de ce monument du féminisme. Un monument parce que c’est : dense et long, mais aussi super important et éducatif.
J’ai appris énormément de choses et j’ai beaucoup exercé mon esprit critique. C’était super, mais un peu fatigant. Je regrette une chose et elle est sur la forme : je trouve le format du livre peu pratique et la mise en page très perfectible.
Food for thought, definitely!
J’ai appris énormément de choses et j’ai beaucoup exercé mon esprit critique. C’était super, mais un peu fatigant. Je regrette une chose et elle est sur la forme : je trouve le format du livre peu pratique et la mise en page très perfectible.
Food for thought, definitely!
June 18, 2022
Un essai indispensable pour toutes les femmes
July 27, 2015
I was especially hostile to Dworkin's POV when I first read this but I've come a long way. I don't agree with some of her most controversial statements on religion, marriage and abortion. But I'm not a "right-wing" woman neither politically, nor as per this book's definition.
She has some points that are good to remember, especially as you get on the structure of the right in the United States. Her constant allusions to the far right and omissions of libertarianism were strange to witness, though I'm pretty sure she'd have classified Rand as complacent with male supremacy (after all, she was).
Most interesting chapters were the first three and the last two. Her chapter on Jews and homosexuals has purposefully misrepresented Christianity by giving word to fundies and Mormons, which is really sad. I still don't understand how, after saying that abortion could scar a woman, she still advocated it, and more in the face of the "coming gynocide", which had too much accuracy even when she didn't exactly envision euthanasia or transgenderism: acceptance of prostitution, IVF and surrogacy, female feticide, were there.
She was fatalistic and angry, but most importantly I liked her recognition that lesbianism is not necessarily a way out, that feminism still has a lot of work to do, even for these women who find the movement morally reprehensible or misguided. This is something you rarely see in the current political climate. Maybe there are things to be learned from Dworkin.
She has some points that are good to remember, especially as you get on the structure of the right in the United States. Her constant allusions to the far right and omissions of libertarianism were strange to witness, though I'm pretty sure she'd have classified Rand as complacent with male supremacy (after all, she was).
Most interesting chapters were the first three and the last two. Her chapter on Jews and homosexuals has purposefully misrepresented Christianity by giving word to fundies and Mormons, which is really sad. I still don't understand how, after saying that abortion could scar a woman, she still advocated it, and more in the face of the "coming gynocide", which had too much accuracy even when she didn't exactly envision euthanasia or transgenderism: acceptance of prostitution, IVF and surrogacy, female feticide, were there.
She was fatalistic and angry, but most importantly I liked her recognition that lesbianism is not necessarily a way out, that feminism still has a lot of work to do, even for these women who find the movement morally reprehensible or misguided. This is something you rarely see in the current political climate. Maybe there are things to be learned from Dworkin.
September 20, 2022
I finally finished my first Andrea Dworkin book!
Her writing is as good as I'd heard about. She writes with a lot of emotion and expertise, and perfectly balances anecdotes with her critical theories on feminism, male dominance and religious or right-wing women.
Her analysis of right-wing women and their relationship with the men around them is enlightening. Though I did not agree with everything, this book, which has arguably had a significant influence on the early feminist movement in the United States was a pleasure (and sometimes painful) to read.
One of her quotes which resonated with me the most was the following;
"This is not a liberal mandate to ignore what is cruel, despicable, or stupid in women, nor is it a mandate to ignore dangerous political ideas or allegiances of women. This does not mean women first, women best, women only. It does mean that the fate of every individual woman – no matter what her politics, character, values, qualities – is tied to the fate of all women whether she likes it or not."
Especially in light of the political divide on the topic of abortion which came up recently in the United States, I think this is something important to remember. Whether we like it or not, our fate is intertwined with that of all women. A sentiment repeated in Audre Lorde's famous quote: "I am not free while any woman is unfree, even when her shackles are very different from my own. And I am not free as long as one person of Color remains chained. Nor is anyone of you."
Finally, her last few lines hit home and hit hard, "The freedom of women from sex oppression either matters or it does not; it is either essential or it is not. Decide one more time."
Her writing is as good as I'd heard about. She writes with a lot of emotion and expertise, and perfectly balances anecdotes with her critical theories on feminism, male dominance and religious or right-wing women.
Her analysis of right-wing women and their relationship with the men around them is enlightening. Though I did not agree with everything, this book, which has arguably had a significant influence on the early feminist movement in the United States was a pleasure (and sometimes painful) to read.
One of her quotes which resonated with me the most was the following;
"This is not a liberal mandate to ignore what is cruel, despicable, or stupid in women, nor is it a mandate to ignore dangerous political ideas or allegiances of women. This does not mean women first, women best, women only. It does mean that the fate of every individual woman – no matter what her politics, character, values, qualities – is tied to the fate of all women whether she likes it or not."
Especially in light of the political divide on the topic of abortion which came up recently in the United States, I think this is something important to remember. Whether we like it or not, our fate is intertwined with that of all women. A sentiment repeated in Audre Lorde's famous quote: "I am not free while any woman is unfree, even when her shackles are very different from my own. And I am not free as long as one person of Color remains chained. Nor is anyone of you."
Finally, her last few lines hit home and hit hard, "The freedom of women from sex oppression either matters or it does not; it is either essential or it is not. Decide one more time."
April 8, 2019
Dworkin isn’t my favorite feminist icon for various reasons but she really does hit the nail on the head in a lot of her writings so I find it sad that many people my age interested in feminist thought and ideas skip over her. This book in particular does a really good job of illuminating how misogyny exists on both the right and left of the political spectrum. Dworkin theorizes that right wing women choose the right because they are more attune to the sexism on the left, which can seem subtle but is also glaringly obvious in many ways. I found myself nodding a lot and thinking “yep this makes sense,” at a lot of the passages.
July 25, 2022
I’m genuinely moved by Dworkin’s books. There is something in her writing that acknowledges my fears and validates my anger. Even though I don’t share all of her views, I’m always impressed by how she skillfully builds her arguments and express them with such ease.
February 17, 2025
she always eats 🙂↕️
November 21, 2025
oh yes this was good
August 4, 2025
Amazing book. The chapters that I enjoyed the most were towards the end, 'the coming gynocide' and 'antifeminism'. Particularly in these chapters, Dworkin really explores the systematic oppression that women face. By exposing the welfare system, abortion laws and sterilisation in the US which all serve the purpose of population control in favour of white middle class women, she undeniably refutes the myth that equality between women and men ended with the Equal Rights Amendment. I also loved her exploration of the different types of antifeminism which pervade political discourse and threaten feminism. Particularly relevant today, with the resurgence of the figure of the tradwife, was her discussion of the 'separate but equal' antifeminism. The idea that women are innately different to men must imply their inferiority and oppression- this kind of rhetoric is dangerous to any actual feminist movement. It also resonates in the widely popular liberal choice feminism, which is also really antifeminist, serving male interests and refusing to acknowledge the system of Class-sex oppression which must be abolished for any meaningful change.
Overall, her argument is about the right wing women that so many liberals struggle to understand. Dworkin argues that it is these women's perception of sex-based oppression that draws them to ideas of homemaking, family and 'traditional values'. She argues that the prostitute and the wife are implicitly connected- both are forced to live on male terms in a male society, and both are used sexually and exploited. The only difference is, the housewife is at least promised safety from other men, economic stability etc. (although this is often not the case).
Overall, her argument is about the right wing women that so many liberals struggle to understand. Dworkin argues that it is these women's perception of sex-based oppression that draws them to ideas of homemaking, family and 'traditional values'. She argues that the prostitute and the wife are implicitly connected- both are forced to live on male terms in a male society, and both are used sexually and exploited. The only difference is, the housewife is at least promised safety from other men, economic stability etc. (although this is often not the case).
October 2, 2025
never have i agreed and disagreed with one sentence to the next so many times as i did in this book. some pages, you’re like… what is this, in the next you’re like oh this is life changing reframing of the social context in which i live. much to consider
July 5, 2018
This is essential reading for all American women, especially in today's political climate. Critiques both the right and left in its exploitation of women.
November 5, 2023
This book is written in the 1980s and in is mainly based on the US system back then, which you need to take into account when reading this book. I find the book quite truthful overall, with some most 'radical' points that I don't really agree with such as that all intercourse and pornography is bad, but the author writes with such passion and decisiveness that it is infectious. The last chapter was a bit too much of the same though, so that could be skipped. Overall this book is very ahead of its time, saying things that are painful to say but (in my opinion) are mostly true. She writes very compelling. I expected a rip on right-wing women, but in the end it is more of a defense why right wing women are who they are, noting that this is just a symptom to a bigger problem: patriarchy.
December 25, 2013
So over the top, and I would have liked a bit more evidence for some of the conclusions she draws. That said, there are many parts of the book that speak to the experience of many women, which is why I think it is so highly rated. And it is refreshing to hear someone speak so frankly (read:strongly) about their own experience and the issues surrounding it.
May 21, 2015
An examination of women's reasons for collaborating with men for the limitation of women's freedom. - Dworkin asked, "Why do right-wing women agitate for their own subordination? How does the Right, controlled by men, enlist their participation and loyalty? And why do right-wing women truly hate the feminist struggle for equality?
April 17, 2018
Brilliant! Right in every sense! Most of it is true beyond America. I just couldn't put it down.
May 6, 2025
Too sad, really - I wanted to give this book 5 stars, because the first half of it is absolutely brilliant in exposing the workings of the reactionary mind, the reason anyone, but women especially, would turn against their most obvious, direct interests in order to look a little more respectable in the eyes of their oppressor, who really does not care anyway. She then leads over into a bit of Bible exegesis, which is more of an analysis of the Bible's meaning in 20th-century protestant America than an objective historical contextualization, but nevertheless still very insightful and interesting. In the final part, however, she loses it completely, and frequently makes statements which contradict the very things she had so brilliantly laid out in the first half. All women, she says, are oppressed by all men - who cares why, and how it works? We don't have to analyze the origins and functions of woman-hating, of the sexual slavery of marriage, of the function of reproductive and economic exploitation and how these systems fit together in order to make a coordinated campaign that brings down the structures which oppress women. All we have to do is unite all women against all men under the idea that women are individuals, not the grotesque creature dictated by patriarchal gender roles.
But unless women can understand the material conditions that exploit them, they will not spontaneously decide that "I am an individual" - the right wing women she talks about are, as she herself points out, convinced that their place in this system is what is best for them, what allows them to be who they are: "women" (aka creatures naturally subservient to men). Further, in her insistence that, really, there is no socio-economic class system beside the "sex-class", or that patriarchal society has no concrete material origins beside, I guess, some intrinsic male need to fuck women OR beget offspring without limit (on this point, she contradicts herself multiple times: on the one hand, she says that women under male rule are necessary only for sex, and that indeed children are a hindrance which leads men to support abortion, because their need for sex is greater than the need to oppress women on absolutely every front; on the other hand, patriarchal society only has one use for women: to give men children, when it comes to sex, masturbation does the trick, and that if men could scientifically engineer a way to get pregnant themselves, women could be done away with altogether), and that all political ideologies and movements are "male" and therefore foundationally built on woman-hating with the central aim to secure male sexual and reproductive access to women's bodies, she makes feminism this impossible, undefined ideal that exists outside the political spectrum. All women, of all persuasions, should realize that "as women", they have the same needs.
But a black woman working in a company owned by a white woman, in order to be free from economic exploitation (one of the forms of anti-woman violence named by Dworkin), needs to work AGAINST, not with, her female boss. There are concrete, material differences between these women - the boss has something to lose from a feminism that gives economic freedom to her employee, and therefore, the feminism that the factory-owner supports is likely going to contain pro-capitalist and racist (driving down the price of black labor) elements, maintaining her economic freedom, whereas the feminism of her employee will have to be anti-capitalist, anti-colonial and anti-racist. Feminism is not a "third way" that stands apart from all other "male" ideologies. Feminism needs to adopt concrete ideological stances and analyses, instead of simply naming symptoms of misogyny and saying "if you don't like some part of this, join the group!" The picture that emerges from this acausal WOMEN VS MEN framing is some sort of male conspiracy that makes concrete political tactics or even the overthrow of patriarchy unthinkable and impossible. If women also have a sex drive, if they also want men to give them children, and if men in fact do enjoy sex with a partner whom they haven't beaten, raped or degraded into being a passive part of an elaborate masturbatory ritual, why has patriarchal society come into being? Is it because women are simply weak, pink-brained and like being forced into submission? If patriarchy is seemingly eternal or just caused by "men", does that not imply that women will forever be victims? That freedom is against their nature?
"Men" also, of course, do not have all the power as a homogenous class, as her example of non-white men makes clear, but in order to explain away this fact, she resorts to the astounding claim that the greater oppression that meets non-white communities is a product of the fact that they tend to consist of more females and female-led single-parent households. That racism may be the cause, instead of the result, of this demographic circumstance, that this may be so because of the particularly hard work and unsafe conditions to which, as a consequence of racism, non-white men are subjected, and the violence and substance abuse which result from poverty, the fact that this is a way in which race and gender work together to/and negatively impact men as well as women (who do not have to do hard work but are now left without a provider) in different ways, does not occur to her, just like it seems she is unaware of the fact that this reduction of racism as not interconnected with but caused by sexism is the argument she is making. As I am sure she knows, there is no concrete conspiracy of males which aims to keep women down, but she also vehemently refuses to acknowledge that the patriarchal structure and its dichotomized system of gender, womanhood and manhood itself, are structurally oppressive and a system that reproduces itself regardless of the individuals that inhabit its binary gender roles. Therefore, the political enemy she constructs amounts to no more than a feminist version of the Jewish-Bolshevik banker conspiracy - "It's the men!" - and thus is as impossible to resolve. The responsibility of a biological group and the "easy solution" of genocide is as comforting a fantasy as of course it is an impossible one; it is for this reason that ardent anti-semitic conspiracy theorists habitually deny the Holocaust - the fact that the murder and dispossession of 6 million Jews and the handing over of their financial assets and property to "Aryans" did not have any impact on the workings of capitalism, that if anything this aided the monopolization of German industry and allowed Germany to emerge as the second strongest capitalist economy in the post-war era, that it is the nature of an abstract economic system that is barbaric, regardless of who sits at the top, would be a devastating reality to the quasi-millenarian belief of those who need a concrete enemy because they find the complexity of abstract social systems too dautingly immaterial. And maybe the impossibility is the point; change is scary, and change is hard.
In this kind of separatist and anti-materialist kind of feminism we already see the intellectual seeds of the sort of thinking which would ultimately lead to collapse of the feminist movement which we have to live with today - you need to work with something, and Dworkin's brand of feminism gives you nothing, no goal (except "individuality" and "freedom"), no strategy, not even a working model for solidarity, and no definition of what it means to be female (she can't even make up her mind if the biologically female ARE women or if woman is a category created by misogyny and imposed on the female-bodied, though she clearly operates on the prior assumption). On the one hand, there is the paranoid worshipping of women's chains by TERFs, who cling to some biological, essentialist definition of womanhood that is perpetually aggrieved, defined by the ability to give birth (women as biological category) AS WELL AS reproductive oppression (women as made, not born). On the other hand, in its totally de-politicized conception of feminism as a big tent of all women against some "male" anti-woman-conspiracy, not based on ideological commitment but simply the loose association of women across the political spectrum who all subscribe to the label of "feminist" so long as they believe that some sort of oppression affects them, no matter if they can agree on what that is, and who all can claim to fight against SOMETHING they deem sexist, Dworkins radical feminism is already extremely close to the completely deradicalized post-feminism which claims that anything a woman does is feminist because she is a woman, that therefore objectifying clothes are feminism because women wear them, pornography and prostitution, no matter how male-gazey, are feminism if it is women themselves who sell themselves through OnlyFans or other services, the genocide in Gaza is feminist because female soldiers engage in it, and that it was indeed second-wave feminists who were the real misogynists for ever claiming that women mostly made these choices because they had internalized patriarchal values. As Dworkin pretty much says, all things that happen to women today are equally bad, we don't need to put them in any sort of causal hierarchy, so the fight against pornography and prostitution (which she particularly fixates on) is equally as urgent as the fight against the systemic economic exploitation that leads women of a certain background to turn to sex work, the fight for short skirts at the office is equally as valid as the fight against objectifying standards of beauty, the fight for more female CEOs is equally important as the fight against these CEOs to give women paid maternity leave, etc.
The final pages were an infuriating, frustrating read that made me despair at seeing the seed for the destruction of the feminist movement which has really been pretty much dead since the second wave. It is pure identity politics, and it is deeply reactionary, anti-left and racist in its blindness to the different experiences of people, not just women, of color, and anti-queer in its schematic understanding that "women" are oppressed for "being women" instead of the function of cisheteronomativity that dictates binary gender roles and thus oppresses everyone, differently, and that work differently along axes of race. It is simply a politics of grievance, with no aim, no goal, no nothing. I am so deeply disappointed by this book, which I loved and recommended to everyone when I started it, it feels like a betrayal.
But unless women can understand the material conditions that exploit them, they will not spontaneously decide that "I am an individual" - the right wing women she talks about are, as she herself points out, convinced that their place in this system is what is best for them, what allows them to be who they are: "women" (aka creatures naturally subservient to men). Further, in her insistence that, really, there is no socio-economic class system beside the "sex-class", or that patriarchal society has no concrete material origins beside, I guess, some intrinsic male need to fuck women OR beget offspring without limit (on this point, she contradicts herself multiple times: on the one hand, she says that women under male rule are necessary only for sex, and that indeed children are a hindrance which leads men to support abortion, because their need for sex is greater than the need to oppress women on absolutely every front; on the other hand, patriarchal society only has one use for women: to give men children, when it comes to sex, masturbation does the trick, and that if men could scientifically engineer a way to get pregnant themselves, women could be done away with altogether), and that all political ideologies and movements are "male" and therefore foundationally built on woman-hating with the central aim to secure male sexual and reproductive access to women's bodies, she makes feminism this impossible, undefined ideal that exists outside the political spectrum. All women, of all persuasions, should realize that "as women", they have the same needs.
But a black woman working in a company owned by a white woman, in order to be free from economic exploitation (one of the forms of anti-woman violence named by Dworkin), needs to work AGAINST, not with, her female boss. There are concrete, material differences between these women - the boss has something to lose from a feminism that gives economic freedom to her employee, and therefore, the feminism that the factory-owner supports is likely going to contain pro-capitalist and racist (driving down the price of black labor) elements, maintaining her economic freedom, whereas the feminism of her employee will have to be anti-capitalist, anti-colonial and anti-racist. Feminism is not a "third way" that stands apart from all other "male" ideologies. Feminism needs to adopt concrete ideological stances and analyses, instead of simply naming symptoms of misogyny and saying "if you don't like some part of this, join the group!" The picture that emerges from this acausal WOMEN VS MEN framing is some sort of male conspiracy that makes concrete political tactics or even the overthrow of patriarchy unthinkable and impossible. If women also have a sex drive, if they also want men to give them children, and if men in fact do enjoy sex with a partner whom they haven't beaten, raped or degraded into being a passive part of an elaborate masturbatory ritual, why has patriarchal society come into being? Is it because women are simply weak, pink-brained and like being forced into submission? If patriarchy is seemingly eternal or just caused by "men", does that not imply that women will forever be victims? That freedom is against their nature?
"Men" also, of course, do not have all the power as a homogenous class, as her example of non-white men makes clear, but in order to explain away this fact, she resorts to the astounding claim that the greater oppression that meets non-white communities is a product of the fact that they tend to consist of more females and female-led single-parent households. That racism may be the cause, instead of the result, of this demographic circumstance, that this may be so because of the particularly hard work and unsafe conditions to which, as a consequence of racism, non-white men are subjected, and the violence and substance abuse which result from poverty, the fact that this is a way in which race and gender work together to/and negatively impact men as well as women (who do not have to do hard work but are now left without a provider) in different ways, does not occur to her, just like it seems she is unaware of the fact that this reduction of racism as not interconnected with but caused by sexism is the argument she is making. As I am sure she knows, there is no concrete conspiracy of males which aims to keep women down, but she also vehemently refuses to acknowledge that the patriarchal structure and its dichotomized system of gender, womanhood and manhood itself, are structurally oppressive and a system that reproduces itself regardless of the individuals that inhabit its binary gender roles. Therefore, the political enemy she constructs amounts to no more than a feminist version of the Jewish-Bolshevik banker conspiracy - "It's the men!" - and thus is as impossible to resolve. The responsibility of a biological group and the "easy solution" of genocide is as comforting a fantasy as of course it is an impossible one; it is for this reason that ardent anti-semitic conspiracy theorists habitually deny the Holocaust - the fact that the murder and dispossession of 6 million Jews and the handing over of their financial assets and property to "Aryans" did not have any impact on the workings of capitalism, that if anything this aided the monopolization of German industry and allowed Germany to emerge as the second strongest capitalist economy in the post-war era, that it is the nature of an abstract economic system that is barbaric, regardless of who sits at the top, would be a devastating reality to the quasi-millenarian belief of those who need a concrete enemy because they find the complexity of abstract social systems too dautingly immaterial. And maybe the impossibility is the point; change is scary, and change is hard.
In this kind of separatist and anti-materialist kind of feminism we already see the intellectual seeds of the sort of thinking which would ultimately lead to collapse of the feminist movement which we have to live with today - you need to work with something, and Dworkin's brand of feminism gives you nothing, no goal (except "individuality" and "freedom"), no strategy, not even a working model for solidarity, and no definition of what it means to be female (she can't even make up her mind if the biologically female ARE women or if woman is a category created by misogyny and imposed on the female-bodied, though she clearly operates on the prior assumption). On the one hand, there is the paranoid worshipping of women's chains by TERFs, who cling to some biological, essentialist definition of womanhood that is perpetually aggrieved, defined by the ability to give birth (women as biological category) AS WELL AS reproductive oppression (women as made, not born). On the other hand, in its totally de-politicized conception of feminism as a big tent of all women against some "male" anti-woman-conspiracy, not based on ideological commitment but simply the loose association of women across the political spectrum who all subscribe to the label of "feminist" so long as they believe that some sort of oppression affects them, no matter if they can agree on what that is, and who all can claim to fight against SOMETHING they deem sexist, Dworkins radical feminism is already extremely close to the completely deradicalized post-feminism which claims that anything a woman does is feminist because she is a woman, that therefore objectifying clothes are feminism because women wear them, pornography and prostitution, no matter how male-gazey, are feminism if it is women themselves who sell themselves through OnlyFans or other services, the genocide in Gaza is feminist because female soldiers engage in it, and that it was indeed second-wave feminists who were the real misogynists for ever claiming that women mostly made these choices because they had internalized patriarchal values. As Dworkin pretty much says, all things that happen to women today are equally bad, we don't need to put them in any sort of causal hierarchy, so the fight against pornography and prostitution (which she particularly fixates on) is equally as urgent as the fight against the systemic economic exploitation that leads women of a certain background to turn to sex work, the fight for short skirts at the office is equally as valid as the fight against objectifying standards of beauty, the fight for more female CEOs is equally important as the fight against these CEOs to give women paid maternity leave, etc.
The final pages were an infuriating, frustrating read that made me despair at seeing the seed for the destruction of the feminist movement which has really been pretty much dead since the second wave. It is pure identity politics, and it is deeply reactionary, anti-left and racist in its blindness to the different experiences of people, not just women, of color, and anti-queer in its schematic understanding that "women" are oppressed for "being women" instead of the function of cisheteronomativity that dictates binary gender roles and thus oppresses everyone, differently, and that work differently along axes of race. It is simply a politics of grievance, with no aim, no goal, no nothing. I am so deeply disappointed by this book, which I loved and recommended to everyone when I started it, it feels like a betrayal.
November 1, 2019
#BabysFirstDworkin
I read a lot of soft garbage on my holiday, so I was ready to kick it up a notch with some political theory. I've also spent the past year reading plenty of libfem, so it was time to throw a little radfem in the mix. I'd never read Dworkin before, but with the release of "Hot Slit" having her make a soft comeback of sorts, I was ready to dive in.
And WHEW. LADS.
This is the type of moonbat shit I live for. Looney liberalism of the ultimate pedigree.
I know Dworkin veers toward hyperbole for the sake of shock value, but this is the kind of stuff that would make a college professor say, "Chill."
So basically what I'm getting from this book is that Dworkin was a female incel who viewed men through the most conspiratorial lens possible. I mean, she's fantastic - and quite possibly the only person who could make Anita Bryant and Phyllis Schlafly sympathetic - but this gal is PAR-A-NOID.
It's maddening, but Dworkin represents that kind of hard-lined principled shit that you just don't see in public intellectuals anymore. The type of vehement misandry that makes radfems so appealing (to a certain subset of people).
Kind of like with Paglia, I disagree with nearly *everything* (I mean, "cocksucking is cannibalism" and "all P in V sex is rape" is certainly not a hill I wanna die on) but boy oh boy am I having a ball watching her burning down those strawmen.
I read a lot of soft garbage on my holiday, so I was ready to kick it up a notch with some political theory. I've also spent the past year reading plenty of libfem, so it was time to throw a little radfem in the mix. I'd never read Dworkin before, but with the release of "Hot Slit" having her make a soft comeback of sorts, I was ready to dive in.
And WHEW. LADS.
This is the type of moonbat shit I live for. Looney liberalism of the ultimate pedigree.
I know Dworkin veers toward hyperbole for the sake of shock value, but this is the kind of stuff that would make a college professor say, "Chill."
So basically what I'm getting from this book is that Dworkin was a female incel who viewed men through the most conspiratorial lens possible. I mean, she's fantastic - and quite possibly the only person who could make Anita Bryant and Phyllis Schlafly sympathetic - but this gal is PAR-A-NOID.
It's maddening, but Dworkin represents that kind of hard-lined principled shit that you just don't see in public intellectuals anymore. The type of vehement misandry that makes radfems so appealing (to a certain subset of people).
Kind of like with Paglia, I disagree with nearly *everything* (I mean, "cocksucking is cannibalism" and "all P in V sex is rape" is certainly not a hill I wanna die on) but boy oh boy am I having a ball watching her burning down those strawmen.
March 15, 2023
I know Dworkin in controversial. This piece sits like an artifact in a museum indicative of a time period passed. There’s a little case on the case but there’s still a light on the object because there is significance. Significant in the way that it shaped a lot of feminist thought and has an impact on today. I’d say some of the messaging is outdated and doesn’t fit with our imperfect but more egalitarian society.
By separating women into whores and wives, even if only for generalization, exactly outlines the Madonna-Whore Complex. I also think that portraying male-female relations as always inherently violating can be harmful.
“They fear that the Left, in stressing impersonal sex and promiscuity as values, will make them more vulnerable to male sexual aggression, and that they will be despised for not liking it.”
The more I read the more I disliked. Dworkin is without hope. Though we are not finished, equality has made great strides. Radfems praise Dworkin but I worry it’s leading them to cynicism and despair. Even if I’m wrong I’d prefer to look at the world with a little more hope.
By separating women into whores and wives, even if only for generalization, exactly outlines the Madonna-Whore Complex. I also think that portraying male-female relations as always inherently violating can be harmful.
“They fear that the Left, in stressing impersonal sex and promiscuity as values, will make them more vulnerable to male sexual aggression, and that they will be despised for not liking it.”
The more I read the more I disliked. Dworkin is without hope. Though we are not finished, equality has made great strides. Radfems praise Dworkin but I worry it’s leading them to cynicism and despair. Even if I’m wrong I’d prefer to look at the world with a little more hope.
August 18, 2013
This was my first book by Dworkin. The book consists of six essays written at the the end of the 70s beginning of the 80s: The Promise of The Ultra-Right; The Politics of Intelligence; Abortion; Jews and Homosexuals; The Coming Gynocide; Antifeminism. Dworkin's insights can be brilliant but at the same time she can be too emotional, as if she is taking things personally, and a bit too repetitive. This makes her arguments not as clear as they could be. Also, it was noticeable for me that the book is a bit dated, although that in a way shows that some of Dworkin's ideas have been incorporated by other feminists I've read before and also into popular culture. Some essays are better than the others and my favorite was Antifeminism.
March 19, 2025
This book is exhausting, enlightening, enraging, and too timely to have been written in 1983.
Right-Wing Women takes a good, hard look at why women align themselves with conservative politics in America, what they gain from the alignment, and what it could mean for the future of the GOP and women's’ rights.
As I currently live in that future Dworkin spoke of, and with this book’s republication in 2025, I just would like to scream into the void - but the void of understanding. Of frustration that many things have not improved.
Dworkin’s thesis statement boils down to women choosing to belong to one man (Right) vs fight for equality and protection (Left). She examines this idea through 5 Chapters:
- The politics of Intelligence
- Abortion
- Jews and Homosexuals
- The Coming Gynocide
- Antifeminism
So much of the ‘Abortion’ chapter rings frustratingly true to this day, and it was by far my favorite of Dworkin’s arguments.
As someone who is not religious nor do I care what the Bible has to say about anything, the ‘Jews and Homosexuals’ chapter lost me a bit with its scripture analysis, but it was a well thought-out argument, nonetheless.
I also really enjoyed the ‘Antifeminism’ chapter, even if I spent most of it enraged at how far antifeminism has entrenched itself in everything, even if it’s subtle.
I just…I do recommend this book, but it’s heavy and I suggest taking your time with it. It’s so exhausting to know so little has changed in nearly 40 years, but it’s also very important as a feminist to know that so little has changed and that the Right has a death grip on the women in its base that no amount of logic from the Left can get through.
Right-Wing Women takes a good, hard look at why women align themselves with conservative politics in America, what they gain from the alignment, and what it could mean for the future of the GOP and women's’ rights.
As I currently live in that future Dworkin spoke of, and with this book’s republication in 2025, I just would like to scream into the void - but the void of understanding. Of frustration that many things have not improved.
Dworkin’s thesis statement boils down to women choosing to belong to one man (Right) vs fight for equality and protection (Left). She examines this idea through 5 Chapters:
- The politics of Intelligence
- Abortion
- Jews and Homosexuals
- The Coming Gynocide
- Antifeminism
So much of the ‘Abortion’ chapter rings frustratingly true to this day, and it was by far my favorite of Dworkin’s arguments.
As someone who is not religious nor do I care what the Bible has to say about anything, the ‘Jews and Homosexuals’ chapter lost me a bit with its scripture analysis, but it was a well thought-out argument, nonetheless.
I also really enjoyed the ‘Antifeminism’ chapter, even if I spent most of it enraged at how far antifeminism has entrenched itself in everything, even if it’s subtle.
I just…I do recommend this book, but it’s heavy and I suggest taking your time with it. It’s so exhausting to know so little has changed in nearly 40 years, but it’s also very important as a feminist to know that so little has changed and that the Right has a death grip on the women in its base that no amount of logic from the Left can get through.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 690 reviews