Why We Object to McDworkins (was Re: Buying 'Intentions')

Charles Brown CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us
Thu Mar 25 09:43:03 PST 1999


Yes, I thought this was your approach. I think your statement below demonstrates for this thread the dialecticality of your position , its unity of opposites. I think some people on this thread may not be aware of your fuller position.


>>> Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1 at osu.edu> 03/24/99 09:28PM >>>
Hi Charles: <<However, aren't there problems with the anti-pornography movement, Dworkin and McKinnon, anti-smut brigades, etc. as discussed at length on the M-fem lis? What is the thin line here between anti-sexism and sexual repression?>>

I'm an anti-McDworkin feminist, as you know from the M-Fem threads and elsewhere. (So are Kelley, Michael Hoover, et al.)

The distinction lies in this. Unlike McDworkins, we do not think that representations of sex & sexuality are bad; on the contrary, we would like to improve them so we may enjoy them more. However, we cannot improve them unless we criticize sexism & exproitation in the existing modes of production & consumption of sex & sexuality & their representations, besides working toward a socialist society (which is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the full flowering of sensuality and friendship, I think). Part of the ruthless criticism of everything existing.


More information about the lbo-talk mailing list