> It should be noted that Dworkin is not attacking the idea of
>gender roles, but the reality of sexual distinction itself. In its
>place she offers a so-called `androgynous ethic' She tries to
>defend this androgynous ethic by claiming that there are no biological
>differences between "men" and "women" which would make any sexual
>difference possible. Here pseudo-science, religion, and out and out
>fantasy are marshaled by Dworkin.
>
> "there is no reason not to postulate that humans once were
>androgynous -- hermaphroditic and androgynous, created precisely in
>the image of the constantly recurring androgynous godhead" (p.176)."
>
> Dworkin asserts that homo sapiens was, at one time hermaphroditic.
> Thus placing human beings on the level of flatworms. Dworkin also
>believes in human parthenogenesis (pregnancy resulting from an
>unfertilized egg - i.e.. conception without sexual union.) Indeed, she
>claims parthenogenesis is a common occurrence. The world is littered
>with virgin births and Athena sprouting out of Zeus' head.
>She concludes:
>
> "Homo Sapiens is a multi-sexed species, which has its sexuality
>spread along a vast fluid continuum where the elements called male and
>female are not discrete" (p.183).
>
> Therefore there is no such thing as being male or female.
>
> Heterosexuality is Evil.
I gotta say, these sectarians make Dworkin sound appealing. Though she's portrayed as a rigid ideologue, this vision of sexual fluidity is a lot more utopian than the literal-minded binarism of these alleged revolutionaries. And they prove the deep links between the need to brighten the line between the biological sexes and conventional heterosexuality. Yuck.
Doug