They say that politics makes strange bedfellows – and honestly, bedfellows don’t get much stranger than when a radical feminist like Andrea Dworkin found herself testifying before the so-called “Meese Commission” (which was actually called “The Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography), ostensibly on the same side of the issue with the likes of James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, an organization which largely occupies itself with lobbying against LGBTQ+ rights.
In many ways, Dworkin doesn’t fit the mold of a typical anti-porn activist. Among other things, Dworkin was againstthe existence and enforcement of federal obscenity laws. In an essay included in a collection of her writings called Letters from a War Zone, Dworkin wrote she and her likeminded feminists were “against obscenity laws.”
“We do not want them,” Dworkin added. “I want you to understand why, whether you end up agreeing or not… Obscenity laws are also woman-hating in their very construction. Their basic presumption is that it’s women’s bodies that are dirty.”
This certainly does not mean Dworkin opposed legal efforts targeting the porn industry, however. In her testimony before the Meese Commission, Dworkin suggesting the government consider “creating a criminal conspiracy provision under the civil rights law, such that conspiring to deprive a person of their civil rights by coercing them into pornography is a crime, and that conspiring to traffic in pornography is conspiring to deprive women of our civil rights.”
By the time she made that suggestion, Dworkin, along with fellow anti-porn activist Catharine MacKinnon, had worked with the city government of Minneapolis, Minnesota, to craft an anti-porn regulation for the city to incorporate into its broader civil rights ordinances. Under the regulation, pornography was defined as a civil rights violation against women, and enabled women who alleged they’d been harmed by porn to sue porn producers and distributors for damages.
(Decades later, we’ve seen something of a return of this approach, as various states have passed legislation creating a right of private action against adult companies for alleged harms incurred by minors who access porn on websites that fail to comply with state age verification laws.)
The law in Minneapolis passed twice, but was vetoed by Mayor Don Fraser both times, decisions rooted in his belief the language of the ordinance was too vague to survive court scrutiny. Mayor Fraser’s belief was later vindicated by the courts, after a similar ordinance was passed in Indianapolis, Indiana. The ordinance was challenged by the American Booksellers Association, with a U.S. District Court’s ruling invalidating the ordinance later upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Undeterred, Dworkin continued to back similar anti-pornography civil rights legislation in Massachusetts and Washington state, where attempts were made to pass similar ordinances through voter initiatives.
Occasionally, you’ll hear one of Dworkin’s critics assert that she argued all heterosexual sex is “rape” – but an honest reading of her work reveals this as an unfair oversimplification. Dworkin did assert that to the extent the sexual subordination of women depicted in pornography reflected broader societal beliefs and attitudes towards sex, that heterosexual sex in a patriarchal society is inherently coercive to (and degrading of) women and that the act of sexual penetration may by its nature condemn women to a submissive, inferior position that “may be immune to reform.” Nowhere did she write anything like “all heterosexual sex is rape,” however.
In response to her critics, Dworkin later said she believed “both intercourse and sexual pleasure can and will survive equality.”
“Since the paradigm for sex has been one of conquest, possession, and violation, I think many men believe they need an unfair advantage, which at its extreme would be called rape,” Dworkin added. “I do not think they need it.”
In any case, nuanced as though her broader social and political views might have been, Dworkin’s opposition to porn was perfectly clear throughout and a big part of her legacy – whether she would want it this way or not – lies in the anti-porn legislation, rhetoric and lobbying she inspired and endorsed over the decades.
Read More »
The War on Porn Regular Updates about the Assault on The Adult Industry