Woman Hating

by Andrea Dworkin

Dworkin examines the place and depiction of women in fairy tales and pornography (focusing on the French erotic novels Story of O and The Image and the magazine Suck). She then looks at the historical practices of Chinese foot binding and Medieval European witch burning from a radical feminist perspective. The book's final section discusses the concept of androgyny within various cultures' creation myths and argues for "the development of a new kind of human being and a new kind of human community" free from gender and gendered roles.

Genres: Feminism, Nonfiction, Politics, Womens, Philosophy, Feminist Theory, Gender

224 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1974

About the author

Andrea 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.

Reviews

[Kitty · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is essential radical feminist reading but also a really good example of how we have to look at second wave texts critically instead of treating them as gospel. Much of this book is illuminating, but the conclusions she draws in the last chapter are very troubling & underexplained, and I do not believe overall indicative of how her beliefs developed. I would recommend this book for baby radfems both as a ecstatic primer to the horror & reach of patriarchy and as a wake up call to the need for critical analysis and drawing your own conclusions based on truth & history. Love you, Andrea, glad you changed your mind on the whole "all humans including children are erotic and heterosexual sex is androgynous" thing.

2023 updated edit:

After learning more about Dworkin and her place in early second wave thought, I now totally understand where the so misplaced as to be shocking last chapter comes from.

This book was written right before the first huge split between radical & liberal feminism - pro and anti porn. Sex liberation (talking about female orgasms, having sex, and discussing sexual abuse/consent) was extremely new and there was a new idea pornography could be a good thing for women's liberation - everything was happening at once. This was her first book, she was very young, and there was an idea that sex liberation could go to utopian free love extremes: porn would be a beautiful expression of human sexuality, there could be a world without oppression where incest & bestiality would be ok because there would be no such thing as sexual harm.

She very clearly changes her mind on all of this stuff even in her next book - it was a misfire of the first days of radical feminism before the split between pro and anti pornographers and pimps - not to mention queer pedophilia! This is why Woman-Hating is such a good example of how to engage with second wave texts - so much of it is relevant, but this last chapter shows you that these are not sacred texts to be taken at their every printed word, they are historical documents of women trying to figure out shit, the same way you're a woman trying to figure out shit. And obviously, she was wrong!

You will absolutely see stuff like this come up in very early second wave texts - read carefully, criticize freely, and don't stop learning!

[Mary · Rating 5 out of 5]

sisters, give yourself some room while reading this one. youll be mad. itll happen.

[Peggy · Rating 5 out of 5]

At the age of 22, decades ago, I read this book, and was amazed. In particular, Dworkin's description of global woman hating cultural practices such as foot binding and witch hunting made a vivid impression upon me. She tied together history and culture to expose patriarchy as a negative anti-life power dedicated to its own perpetuation. Though I had read Millett, Freidan, de Beauvoir, Solanas, Morgan, Brownmiller, and many others during the early seventies, the force of Dworkin's arguments reached me in a way that theirs didn't, perhaps because it was not written in an academic way, nor did it rely upon the reader recognizing herself as a housewife, mother, or middle aged. Woman Hating was the perfect book for a young woman to read immediately before setting off into the world from college. The only logical response to it was to set all girlish romantic illusions aside, recognize the world for what it was, and set forth relying upon one's self, seeking a path that would not require any sort of intercourse with anti-woman forces. So, thank you, Andrea Dworkin. I'm going to put this one on my "books to re-read" list so find out what it looks like from the perspective of a woman nearing later middle age.

[Jocelyn · Rating 3 out of 5]

What first struck me while reading this was the realization that, despite what most people say about her, Andrea Dworkin was not "crazy" while writing it. It's hard to argue with her thesis: Western and Eastern civilization and culture, as a matter of course, operated on the degradation and villainization of women, from fairy tales to marrying off your daughters for money to impossible demands for beauty. Men needed women to fuck and make children, and a system was in place to keep them in their place, and it grew exponentially (fairy tales lead to actual witch trials, etc).

And it is remarkable to me that no one would really *argue* with that thesis, which makes me wonder why this book was so controversial when it was released. Was she the first person to observe what we all pretty much accept as true, and was it really only in the past 30 years we acknowledged it?

It seems too richly ironic/annoying that Dworkin was dismissed by many critics in a way her book could have predicted: She's too crazy! Too angry! And look at how she dresses!

I think about this book practically every time my feet hurt from walking around in heels.

[persephone ☾ · Rating 3 out of 5]

this was genuinely brilliant until she started advocating for incest, bestiality, children’s “erotic” expression or when she started arguing that intercourse with men is impossible because “it means remaining the victim, forever annihilating all self-respect” and a bunch of other bs that might as well be part of the SCUM manifesto :)

[D. · Rating 5 out of 5]

I wish I'd read this when I was sixteen. For that matter I wish every young woman could.

[Beth · Rating 2 out of 5]

The first half was amazing then the book completely broke down toward the end and she ended up defending beastiality and incest??? No thanks

[Elagabalus · Rating 4 out of 5]

I agree with most of what Dworkin says here, and it has been important for my ideological and perceptive development. It's also great that she's at least one radical feminist who isn't transfobic. I agree with most of radical feminism beside that major point and a few others.

Unfortunately, as with anyone, I have my disagreements. For one, she gets academic in one chapter, reminding me of what I disliked most about Intercourse. She made far too much reference to a couple of creepy and disgusting books, when I just want to read what -she- writes. She does write from her own self all the rest of the book, though.

The other issue I have is the end sections about 'taboo' subjects. There seems to be a taboo taboo where it's taboo to not talk about taboo. The significant differences present in child development, vulnerable adulthood brain capabilities, and nonhuman animal relational concepts, are all HUGE reasons these taboos exist. She, as with other taboo-fixated feminists, seem to think that unmitigated erotic relations are a path to independence and noncoercive sexuality. But the fight against coercion and nonconsent does not begin with diminishing our erotic boundaries - it is in solidifying what our boundaries mean (such as the limits of communication+scrutiny related to brain and social development), how to uphold boundaries against 'free love' manipulation, and how to defeat the coercive structure so as to have a freer relationship with all life, all without the priorities of sexuality and eroticism.

I do understand this was her first writing, and I know she came to disagree with certain of the creepy practices defined as 'taboo', which is why I feel inclined to continue reading her works. But it's still a problem.

Anyway, other than those very, very brief disagreements (which are vital disagreements no less), all the rest of this book were tremendous toward building my understanding of the world. It is a foundational work for all of us.

[Cher · Rating 1 out of 5]

What sort of crack was Dworkin smoking when she wrote this book? It was her first publication, but that's surely no excuse. She makes some valid points about how misogynist our American society has been/is/can be, then goes on to say we as humans should be so free that we should be able to have sex with anyone we want, regardless of their age or even species. A lot of random ideas thrown together that make absolutely no sense and are, many of which, utterly horrifying.

[L · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is awesome if you never read the last chapter of it. The last chapter makes no sense and is quite disturbing to be quite honest, but the rest of the book is brilliant.

[Erin · Rating 3 out of 5]

I loved the first 3/4 of the book and was impressed by Dworkin the literary critic and historian. The ending, while well intended, was a bit of a train wreck. I didn't need to read about Julian Beck's cross dressing hard on (why is she so obsessed with him?) nor to see child abuser John Money's discredited gender frameworks used in ernst. The statements on parthenogenesis are completely false. No viable fetus has ever resulted from one person alone.

[Cwn_annwn_13 · Rating 4 out of 5]

I like to read things espousing extreme ideologies and have found some of the radical feminist stuff to be up the there with craziest.

In a nutshell she hates Fairy Tales and Christianity. Somehow Islam is not mentioned once in this tome of feminal oppression documentation. The chapters on Chinese foot binding and middle ages witch hunts from Christians were actually interesting and well written. The insanity of the foot binding reminds me of the insanity of mass plastic surgery among Asian women. Like foot binding was in China, extreme plastic surgery is now in Asia considered a sign of being upper class/higher class person. Possibly a multi generational psychological carry over there. Dworkin also shows herself to be a pioneer in the concept that there is no such thing as gender with two whole chapters dedicated to and championing "androgyny" and a genderless humanity. Then at the end she creepily advocates in no uncertain terms that people should be allowed to have sexual relations with animals and children.

I mean what can you say about Dworkin. She was intelligent but completely insane. A hopelessly unattractive woman that hates all things with beauty. A Freudian delight no doubt. But a transparent one.

4 out of 5 stars for the entertainment value.

[Judith Smulders · Rating 1 out of 5]

Although I did like the first part of the book on porn, footbinding and the witchtrials but the last part was so utterly terrible I really can't give this more than 1 star. The excuses for bestiality and incest made my blood boil. No matter how many different interpretations i've seen on these excerpts it all just reeks of MAP/kink positivity from the person you'd least expect it from. The writing style was rambling and not structured. A big mess with some quotes thrown in here and there. This will be the first and last Dworkin book I will read.

[Rikki · Rating 3 out of 5]

Had I ended before the second half, I would have given this five stars. Her writing on pornography and how it feeds directly into the domination-subordination dynamic and the sadomasochistic culture that defines patriarchy and sex-based oppression as it is experienced by females was phenomenal. Her exposé on Chinese footbinding was both harrowing and fantastic; I learned so much. Her musings on fairy tales and witches were captivating and offered many "hell yes!" and "aha!" moments alike.

But then everything went to shit.

There was a very clear point in Woman Hating that marked where it would dive straight into the dumpster. It was as she embarked into "Androgyny" and started to discuss religion and human social evolution. She made the big mistake of employing miserably poor historicity, with one key example being her disclaiming that we know somewhere in the vicinity of only 2 percent of human history and then shooting off into the night with purported myths and realities of primitive cultures as support for her claims--all apparently sans citations. And her main point, in this section, was to demonstrate that we are not a sexually dioecious* species but multisexed. (Although she initially led up to "unisexed," then landed on "multisexed" after talking about intersexed persons. It's clear that Dworkin believed that the exceptions should define the rules without exception.)

She goes on to not only apologize for bestiality and incest but to advocate for them--and while she doesn't overtly say parents should be fucking their children, she doesn't do much to counter her heavy implication for it either. She's also extremely lesbo/homophobic in one particular passage, with whispers of it throughout other sections of the book as well:

An exclusive commitment to one sexual formation, whether homosexual or heterosexual, generally means an exclusive commitment to one role. An exclusive commitment to one sexual formation generally involves the denial of many profound and compelling kinds of sensuality.

"Just try me on for size, baby!" says every rapey schmuck to every lesbian ever.

An exclusive commitment to one sexual formation generally means that one is, regardless of the uniform one wears, a good soldier of the culture programmed effectively to do its dirty work. It is by developing one's pansexuality to its limits (and no one knows where or what those are) that one does the work of destroying culture to build community."

So, patriarchy hasn't fallen yet because lesbians won't allow more dick into their schedules. Hmm.
(Emboldened text is my own alteration, for emphasis.)

She goes on to claim, under "Transsexuality," that transgenderism ("transsexuals" was her word) is not a disease--or, at least, that was the implication when it sounded like she was mocking the fact that it is generally regarded, at the time of publication, to be "considered a gender disorder...a 'disease' with a cure: a sex-change operation[.]" But she later says that "[e]very transsexual...is in a state of primary emergency[,]...has the right to live on his/her own terms[,]...is entitled to a sex-change operation, and it should be provided by the community as one of its functions. This is an emergency measure for an emergency condition." So, she's an advocate of personal conversion therapy rather than an overhaul of the toxic gender system which creates the phenomenon of transgenderism. This is a confusing conclusive stance for her to take, as it has seemed throughout the preliminary sections of the book that she would attack gender as a patriarchal tool of oppression, which she had done extensively, and see that advocating for hormone therapies and irreversible surgeries is an advocacy that unequivocally upholds patriarchy and thereby female oppression. Gender ideology does nothing to challenge the patriarchal, misogynistic status quo.

Additionally, to put so much weight on the phenomenon of transgenderism as being "a state of emergency" seems insulting at best; what of the states of emergencies experienced by girls and women around the world? A man believing he should be entitled to women's spaces and bodies is hardly grounds for "a state of emergency," unless we consider it to be so for the women to whom he feels entitled.

My other problem with this section is the part of her call to action that says "[every transsexual] has the right to live on his/her own terms." I disagree wholeheartedly: For much of the transgender community, particularly trans-identified males ("transwomen"), living on their own terms means to actively erase, harass, abuse, and fight to dismantle any progress made for women and women's issues. Male entitlement to women and girls has grown to a frighteningly behemoth extent, fueled in large parts by the omnipresence of ever more violent porn and the dismal state of living under late-stage capitalism in a hyperconsumerist society. This has extended into the realm of womanhood itself, starting with autogynephilia and expressing it by dressing in stolen women's panties or flashing young girls for the sport of it and ending in the shutting down of women's shelters, rape centers, women's sports, women's prisons, gynecology and women's health as a specialized field, and women's lockers and restrooms, to name a few.

How does she not make the connection between trans/gender ideology and patriarchy? She does so much to build up the argument that we must unlearn so much toxic socialization (femininity for females and masculinity for males) in order to work toward an androgynous and more socially just society--and then she just throws it away! (If we accept the premise that gender is the means by which social justice is lost due to the sex-based oppression it naturally reinforces, then the abolition of gender and the embrace of all of us as simply male and female humans with a blend of human traits once arbitrarily labelled "feminine" or "masculine" and denied to some while assigned to others would naturally bring about this justice that has been missing for so long.) She spends the first half of the book making the argument that gender (as opposed to sex) is socialized and ends the book with some grotesque, twisted, contradictory argument for gender not only being innate, akin to or the same as one's sex, but also that we are multisexed, and the abandonment of gender and an embrace of androgyny is the only way to achieve liberation. Now, this latter part is reminiscent of her original argument, but after jumping off into amazing feats of mental gymnastics so as to totally contradict herself, it's hard to know for sure what exactly she's calling for.

And how did she not see her inclusion of Julian Beck's autogynephilic quote (about donning the silk panties and getting a boner from it) to be a product of internalized misogyny? It's so blatant!

Around the time that she donned the cultural anthropologist's cap was when her writing felt very alien, as if it were at the very least unfinished, as if snippets from freewrites in her journal or flashes of inspiration quickly scribbled down, and at the very most not her at all, as if someone else had written the entire second half of the book. It's very perplexing and, frankly, disturbing.

As a final note of criticism, I found her afterword to be absolutely cringy. Her publisher wanted her to use punctuation? Wanted her work to be accessible? Readable? Oh, you poor, victimized, silenced and nigh-vanquished martyr-artist, you. /eyeroll

Overall, the brilliance of the first half of the book kept me slogging through the horrific miasma that was the second half and has my interest fueled enough to try her other books. But I'll be going in even more skeptically and with the conditioning that comes from having been burned by a trusted elder: At the first sign of pedophile advocacy, I'm out.

It's uncomfortable and confusing knowing such a cherished and celebrated radical feminist had such antifeminist views. Maybe this was just because this was her first book. Maybe she was just angry and young and didn't logically process what she had written. Maybe it was because it was the 70s. Maybe her later writing shows signs of that logical clarity that shone through so beautifully in the first half of Woman Hating. Only one way to find out.

*[Edit from Dec 2022: from "dimorphic" to "dioecious" for greater clarity and accuracy. Dimorphism ≠ dioecy but dioecy can and does include dimorphism.]

[Corvus · Rating 5 out of 5]

Everything I even thought I knew about Andrea Dworkin was wrong. I read this book, intrigued to know more about this feminist who seemed to be either loved or hated by so many. What I found was a passionate and painful book about what women (and trans people even) suffer in this world. It was full of, not ridiculous or outlandish leaps, but a true love of women and a desire for their liberation. It was an honest and aggressive attack on the horrible things women experience in this world, radical now, and even moreso when it was written. It prompted me to read more Dworkin and she is now one of my favorite writers, whether or not we agree on everything. Experiencing her passion and love is truly a gift in this world.

[Kat Robinson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mostly ok but then in the last chapter she says we have to get over incest??? OK WHY??????

[Jaclynn (JackieReadsAlot) · Rating 2 out of 5]

Some relevant and powerful commentary on misogyny in our society and throughout history, but the concluding chapter is shockingly absurd.

[East Bay J · Rating 4 out of 5]

I had this book forever and finally got around to reading it. Of course I wish I'd read it sooner. The most amazing thing about Woman Hating is that everything Dworkin has to say about women is just as true today, in 2008, as it was when the book was published in 1974. Sure, some things have gotten better for women but other things have remained the same. Sexism is rampant in U.S. society today. Entertainment, music, fashion and so much else contiue to fly whatever flag sells their product while quietly subverting women's self image. It's sad but, more than thirty years after it first hit shelves, Woman Hating is valuable, volatile information. Women should read it for their own good and men should read it for the good of the women in their lives, mothers, wives, sisters and daughters. People from all backgrounds, all walks of life and in all stages of life should read Woman Hating and work to change attitudes and ultimately eliminate woman hating from our society.

[Melissa Stacy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Andrea Dworkin's first published work of nonfiction, "Woman Hating," (1974), is a concise study of a variety of topics. The misogyny of fairy tales, Chinese foot-binding, and the slaughter of innocent women accused of being "witches" by the Christian Church, are succinctly examined in this text. Dworkin also provides a literary analysis of some famous works of pornography, including "The Story of O."

The last part of the book is an examination of androgyny, both in the scientific biology of humans and various creation myths.

The "Afterword" describes Dworkin's failed struggle to publish the book without "standard punctuation." I have read two more of Dworkin's books, "Pornography" (1981) and "Intercourse" (1987), and neither of those books featured statements about standard punctuation restricting a writer's freedom of thought. Dworkin is a very fine writer, the best writer I've ever had the pleasure of reading, and her use of standard punctuation never seems to hinder the radical expressiveness of her perspicacious mind. I appreciated her questions in the Afterword, while still being grateful that all of the books I have read by Andrea Dworkin have featured standard punctuation.

"Woman Hating" is a good book, but it's so very short compared to her later work. I prefer her longer books. "Pornography" and "Intercourse" are about twice the length of "Woman Hating."

I wish I'd had Dworkin's books when I was a child. But at least I am reading her now. I want to read more of her work.

Five stars. Very good, I just wish it were longer.

[Becca · Rating 3 out of 5]

This one's a real mixed bag, I thought. Her strengths definitely lie in literary analysis and interesting writing. She's spot on when she talks about witch hunts and foot-binding. What she often excels at is presenting horrific facts in quite a dispassionate fashion, which for me increases their impact.

The "facts" about fairies... well, I'll have to read up on what was accepted at the time, but right now I have no idea where she got that from. I found the second half of the book started to break down a bit with the sections on "androgyny". I'm not entirely sure why she decided to defend bestiality, but it's not a choice I would have made. I wasn't sure about the scientific material she used. I think Disorders of Sexual Development (DSDs) (intersex conditions) are becoming better understood now, and deserve a more rigorous approach and a whole book (to deal with scientific, ethical, social issues and present opposing theories).

This was her first book, so I'm not sure what I was expecting - obviously someone so full of fire would be dynamic and changing during her life. What's interesting about reading her writing chronologically is hopefully I'll see the various changes over time (vs. seeing them in random contradictory excerpts). This is definitely worthwhile in building up a fuller picture of Dworkin, but it's not my favourite work of hers.

[Merinde · Rating 1 out of 5]

Finally. I feel like my eyes are bleeding. There was one useful chapter, the one in which she criticized Greer and the sexual politics of her contemporary leftists. The rest was a) dated b) just flat out BAD. Badly researched, bad science, bad sources. Intercourse is worth reading if you're interested in Dworkin. This is most definitely not, unless you like being told about outdated myths about matriarchal neolithic religion surviving into the middle ages and virgin birth being actually being a thing that is possible without outside assistance. Uhm. I cannot recommend this book to anyone. Only the chapter about the magazine Suck. That was interesting. The sad this is that she has a POINT. She has a point when she talks about androgyny and the possibility of sex without harmful dynamics. But it's a point she misses, entirely. She's onto something, something she gets angry about not generally happening later on in Intercourse. But it's wrapped in all that utter outdated crap. Shame, shame shame.

[melis · Rating 2 out of 5]

the chapters on androgyny basically ruined this book for me.

in those last chapters dworkin's distinct voice changes quite a bit, as if written by someone else. the time and length she devotes to developing her "arguments" shortens distinguishably, and her wording comes closer to "academic mindfuck" that she has been criticising. apart from the style, I disagree with and oppose most (almost all) of her arguments in those chapters. I believe that she has turned to subjects that she has little, if not none, fundamental understanding/knowledge of and research on, which shows through her short and sloppy paragraphs dedicated to entire parts, sometimes glossed over with quotations. these chapters mostly read like queer theory, by the way, with their urgent emphasis on gender fluidity and androgynous pansexuality, which was surprisingly odd to come across in a radical feminist text.

[Bill Bailey · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a great eye-opener for me. I hadn't considered matters from this point of view - probably, I hadn't considered anything at all except in a most superficial way.

[Andrea Fleury · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not my cup of tea. I'm old fashion woman.

[Abigail · Rating 4 out of 5]

I loved this and I'm glad I read it, it's really powerful to read a feminist book that doesn't back down and a direct response to all of the pseudo-feminist ideas floating around today. Dworkin is super smart and such a bad-ass, I really loved reading her. She really had me up until that very last section on taboos... that was really crossing the line, in my opinion and I'm confused by the purpose it served. It seems like her argument about androgyny/the social construct of gender would've come across a lot better without that section.

Excepting the last chapter however-- one of the best books I've ever read! I am filled with righteous anger and I am ready to fight.

[Mo · Rating 2 out of 5]

Love her work and her thought, but the empirical arguments in this book are hopeless. Almost none of the facts are true; nor are they particularly necessary for the philosophy expressed. Read Intercourse instead.

[lady maria · Rating 3 out of 5]

i really don’t know how to review this. i agreed with majority of the points, the way she talks about the topic, woman hating (sexism, misogyny), is very graphic at times but that is unfortunately our reality. misogyny is violent, it needs to be explained with graphic vocabulary so it can finally be taken seriously (final is a stretch because, again, unfortunately, misogyny still isn’t seen as something serious. there are still people who believe feminism is unnecessary and that misogyny isn’t real - and because of that we need to keep talking about it, talk about the harsh reality of woman hating, about all violence and abuse, etc)

and as much as i agree on these points, agree on the way she talks about sex, pornography, history of violence against women (specifically witch hunts and footbinding in china), religious misogynistic “truths”, the myths and fairytales that enforce misogynistic and sexist gender roles, i disagree with her views on taboo topics (not all) - incest, bestiality, “children” - which made me really repulsed towards the end that i could barely keep reading (good thing that part was short)

it’s a work worth reading, definitely, but you should form your own opinions after it. don’t take every single word (from anything, not just this) written as an absolute truth that can’t be questioned. this is not the one and only piece you need to read to understand woman hating, this is just the beginning, and it’s useless to read just this in hopes of “being or becoming a feminist” if you are not going to educate yourself further.

[Melinda · Rating 4 out of 5]

A lot of really fascinating ideas, commentary, and history. The first three parts of the book — on fairy tales, pornography, and footbinding / witch-burning were both gripping and horrifying. I love how clever and perfect Dworkin's prose is; in hardly any words, she is biting and exact. I was not such a fan of the last part of the book, on androgyny, and the pro-heterosexuality, pro-incest, and pro-zoophilia utopia she describes. Interesting thoughts on punctuation in the angry afterword.

[Kirsten · Rating 5 out of 5]

one of the best books I have ever read. It is a damning expose of patriarchy and all its machinations. Those who are not interested in critical thinking will criticize the form (the repetition) and not really make an attempt to delve into why they therefore dislike the content. Hint: there's not as much repetition as they claim. It's an elegantly written book and very hard to put down.

[☆ piupiu ☆]

i don't think i've ever felt more suffocated in my life but in a good way. i wouldn't recommend this widely though, i couldn't read more than one or two essays at a time which is why it took me a couple months to get through it— it i think you have to know what you're getting into when you pick this up